[Senate Hearing 107-697]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 107-697
 
       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

=======================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                                before a

                          SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

            COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                   ON

                               H.R. 5010

  AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE 
     FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2003, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                               __________

                         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
78-465                          WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800  
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001








                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             TED STEVENS, Alaska
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina   THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
HARRY REID, Nevada                   MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 CONRAD BURNS, Montana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington             RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island              MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
                  Terrence E. Sauvain, Staff Director
                 Charles Kieffer, Deputy Staff Director
               Steven J. Cortese, Minority Staff Director
            Lisa Sutherland, Minority Deputy Staff Director
                                 ------                                

                        Subcommittee on Defense

                   DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina   TED STEVENS, Alaska
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
HARRY REID, Nevada                   RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

                           Professional Staff

                            Charles J. Houy
                              Susan Hogan
                              Tom Hawkins
                            Robert J. Henke
                             David Morrison
                              Lesley Kalan
                               Menda Fife
                            Mazie R. Mattson
                      Steven J. Cortese (Minority)
                        Sid Ashworth (Minority)
                       Kraig Siracuse (Minority)
                       Alycia Farrell (Minority)

                         Administrative Support

                             Elnora Harvey
                        Nicole Royal (Minority)





                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                      Wednesday, February 27, 2002

                                                                   Page

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

                        Wednesday, March 6, 2002

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

                       Wednesday, April 17, 2002

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

                       Wednesday, April 24, 2002

Department of Defense:
    National Guard Bureau........................................   177
    Reserves.....................................................   261

                         Wednesday, May 1, 2002

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

                         Wednesday, May 8, 2002

Department of Defense:
    Health Affairs...............................................   379
    Nurse Corps..................................................   421

                        Wednesday, May 15, 2002

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

                         Tuesday, May 21, 2002

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

                        Wednesday, June 5, 2002

Department of Defense:
    United States Military Academy, U.S. Army....................   597
    United States Naval Academy..................................   605
    United States Air Force Academy..............................   611

                        Wednesday, June 12, 2002

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


       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:25 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Inouye, Hollings, Byrd, Dorgan, 
Feinstein, Stevens, Specter, Domenici, Shelby, Gregg, and 
Hutchison.

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                        Office of the Secretary

STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL WOLFOWITZ, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF 
            DEFENSE
ACCOMPANIED BY DR. DOV ZAKHEIM, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, COMPTROLLER


             opening statement of senator daniel k. inouye


    Senator Inouye. Secretary Wolfowitz, Dr. Zakheim, on behalf 
of the committee I would like to welcome you as we begin our 
deliberations on the Department of Defense (DOD) appropriations 
request for fiscal year 2003. It provides for the common 
defense. So states the Constitution in its preamble. This 
function was so important to the formation of this more perfect 
union our forefathers placed this clause in the very first 
paragraph of our Nation's governing document.
    The function of this subcommittee is to appropriate the 
funding necessary to insure that our military can provide for 
the common defense. It is indeed a critically important task. 
Last year some would argue we failed in that endeavor. On 
September 11, 2001, our defenses broke down. Three icons of 
American strength, the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the 
workplaces of thousands of American were attacked with 
devastating consequences. The attack came not from a hostile 
nation but from a handful of terrorists armed with jumbo jets. 
Their weapon, filled with irony, was one which symbolizes 
American economic success and democratic freedoms. Our airlines 
have afforded millions of our citizens to fly unfettered for 
business or pleasure.
    As we all know, thousands of lives were lost and had it not 
been for the heroic efforts of civilians on a fourth plane, 
another location would have also likely been attacked. Some 
would argue we failed in this attack, they want to know how 
this happened, what went wrong, and who was to blame, and I 
think these are fair questions. It might not be fair, but it 
seems to me that many who are quick to point fingers today are 
the same ones who would have argued that we need to cut defense 
spending, that we don't need to modernize our forces or pay our 
troops, many of the same ones who wonder why some of us feel it 
is necessary that we pay our military personnel a decent wage 
and why we work to insure that they have adequate housing, 
acceptable health care and the promise of a reasonable 
retirement income after they have sacrificed for our country.
    I know that our witnesses today and my colleagues here are 
not among these naysayers. We recognize that less than 1 
percent of the American population is willing to wear the 
uniform of our Nation. We know that we should be grateful to 
them and we must treat them accordingly. I tell you this 
because I already hear the criticism of your budget request for 
fiscal year 2003.
    These critics argue that, why should we be giving the 
Pentagon an increase of $48 billion when they just had a $20 
billion increase less than a year ago. They point out that at 
the same time as defense is increasing substantially, all other 
discretionary spending is being curtailed with a minimal 
increase only to cover accounting change. They want to know how 
homeland defense, the protection of the waterways and airports 
will be safeguarded within this small increase in domestic 
spending. They find the disparity between defense and non-
defense troubling.
    Mr. Secretary, Dr. Zakheim, I will not be a party to 
shortchange defense, but I think that you have your work cut 
out for you. It will be up to you to convince our colleagues 
that your needs are greater than those of other Federal 
agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the 
Customs Service, the Coast Guard, State Department and others. 
They too must strive to better protect our Nation from another 
terrorist attack and meet the challenges of this century.
    Your task is particularly challenging as you have requested 
$10 billion for unknown contingency costs. Your critics call 
this a slush fund. Any light you can shed on this will help us 
defend this request. Mr. Secretary, Dr. Zakheim, we look 
forward to your testimony on these and other important issues.
    But before we proceed, it is my privilege to call upon my 
good friend the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Senator 
Stevens.


                    statement of senator ted stevens


    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, and I apologize for 
being late. I was in another subcommittee meeting before that 
vote. I do join in welcoming these two witnesses.
    I think no administration has faced in as short a period of 
time the range of national security challenges that this one 
has faced in this first year and I think it is really a change, 
substantial change in our society. But I think that the men and 
women of our armed services owe a great deal of gratitude to 
the two of you for your hard work and your sacrifice in taking 
these positions, and I do thank you for your extraordinary 
leadership in meeting these challenges and I'm sure that you 
are now and will become even more trusted partners of this 
committee and our work for defense.
    We have got both a blessing and a curse right now. The 
additional funds that we have before us now requested by the 
administration will go a long way to address the things that we 
know exist in our Department of Defense, but it is going to 
increase the second guessing that we will hear along the line 
about the choices to be made in the budget and particularly 
between the budget for defense and non-defense, as the chairman 
has indicated. We constantly face questions of why there should 
be such an increase in defense.
    We worked with you last year to produce legislation to 
respond to the attacks of September 11 and I know under the 
leadership of Senator Inouye we will continue with a sense of 
determination to meet the needs that you have outlined here 
today to assist our men and women in uniform both home and 
abroad.
    I joined the chairman and others last week in going to 
central Asia and I have to tell you, we have traveled around 
the world to meet with our military forces now for well over 30 
years and I have never seen young people so ready and so 
confident and so able, they really had a tremendous attitude, 
the morale was very high, and it reflects great credit upon the 
job that you all are doing and those in the command structure 
are doing to reassure these young people of what their task is 
and what their mission is.
    I look forward to your testimony and an opportunity to work 
with you as the year goes ahead. Let me say, I think there are 
going to be some changes within the command structure that I 
still do not understand, but we will watch, we will deal with 
those as they unfold. Thank you very much.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Hollings.


                statement of senator ernest f. hollings


    Senator Hollings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 
glad to meet Dr. Zakheim. I have been an admirer of Secretary 
Wolfowitz for a long long time and incidentally, I am an 
admirer of Rumsfeld and was so before he became popular. Last 
year there was a news story that he would be the first in the 
Cabinet to leave. I am not going to get into that but since the 
distinguished gentleman is ``clueless in the Nation's 
capital,'' I guess that is the Governors that David Broder 
writes about, because they come to town and they are worried, 
and they find almost a hedonistic government here in 
Washington.
    Specifically, every one of them have deep deep deficits, 
there are not any surpluses. The State just over here across 
the river is over $1 billion, up in New York the State there is 
$48 billion, and the City of New York, Senator Stevens and I 
were there, and on saving the City of New York, that is $25 
billion in the hole. There are at least a half dozen States 
trying to not just cut spending but increase taxes. Governor 
Bush down in Florida, he is holding back, withholding on a tax 
cut. But he is not calling it a tax increase. When we try to 
hold the line and practice fiscal responsibility, they said oh 
no, that is increasing taxes, and you cannot comment on the 
reality in this town. The pollsters have taken over totally, 
Mr. Chairman.
    But the point is that we just seemingly go on and on in 
1999 and incidentally, the Clinton budget, I will have to check 
it, but he was very sensitive about having ducked the military, 
it was a point in his campaign and in fact it is an important 
point down in my State still. But the fact was, he was not 
going to deny the military in his 8 years as President and 
Commander in Chief. And while we had in 1999 the $275 billion, 
in 2000 we jumped it to $295 billion, and last year we jumped 
it another $11 billion to $306 billion. Both the year before 
last we had a pay increase, last year we had a pay increase, 
and there are increases that you are now submitting. But that 
is not the point.
    The point is that this aura of somehow defense had gone to 
pot on President Clinton's watch, yet the two distinguished 
gentlemen and ranking members say the morale is high and 
everybody knows they have performed admirably in Afghanistan, 
so we have a strong defense. But last year sitting in that same 
seat, Secretary Rumsfeld 6 days before 9/11 attested to the 
fact that he was going to have a new high tech defense, which 
calls for the old systems to be phased out and the savings were 
going to pay for the high tech systems. He said it was going to 
cost more money, but he attested to the fact that the budget 
you are now here to testify on, Secretary Wolfowitz, is $347 
billion. He said the budget would be $328 billion for this 
fiscal year, but the one you're testifying about this morning 
it was going to be $347 billion. Of course since that time we 
have added $20 billion in the supplemental and we willingly did 
so, we wanted to show our troops our support.
    And yet we find here today, that there is $50 billion more, 
like he said, in a contingency fund. The Crusader, the V-22, 
the F-22--every kind of piece of equipment imaginable. And then 
in this year's submission, the Navy is not going to start 
constructing enough ships and everything else, yet there is a 
projected $650 billion as what we are going to have to approve 
this year for the 10-year budget.
    So I will be questioning trying to find out how in the 
world can we maintain the credibility of this subcommittee, Mr. 
Secretary. I will never forget Schwartzkopf coming up here 
after Desert Storm, and he did not go to the authorizing 
committees at all, and he did not go, he said I am coming to 
this Defense Subcommittee here in the United States Senate 
because you saved my Central Command. They were about to 
abolish it, and we saved that. You remember that, Senator 
Stevens, Mr. Chairman, and we have always had it on the other 
side, Chairman Inouye. On this subcommittee, we are the ones 
that are going to provide resources to our Armed Forces.
    So I welcome you, but we are going to have to have some 
cold hard justifications--this town is going to sober up 
sometime this year. We already ended up last year without a 
surplus and on the contrary, a $43 billion deficit. As you sit 
in that chair we are already 4 months into this fiscal year, 
almost 5 months, $190 billion in the red, we have a deficit, 
and we know it will exceed over $350 billion by the end of the 
year. And so the politicians that are running for reelection in 
October when those figures come out, they will say that we are 
running a deficit of $350 billion because of Afghanistan, but 
that war did not cost that much. But of course when we say we 
are not going to pay any bills, all the Governors are having to 
pay their bills.
    We have always paid for our wars. We have to pay our taxes, 
so that when this committee votes to pay for this war, we have 
resources to pay the bills. But we say by the way, since we 
have a war we are going to have deficits and incidentally, the 
war is never going to end. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Hutchison.


               statement of senator kay bailey hutchison


    Senator Hutchison. I would just like to say that I think 
that the Department of Defense has done a phenomenal job since 
September 11. Who would have thought that this would be the 
mission that you would be undertaking. We thought you were 
going to be required to update the military for the next 
century, and you are, but you're also dealing with the crisis 
of the moment, and I certainly appreciate the increase in needs 
this demands and we will work with you in every way.
    I do have a couple questions which I will save for later. I 
do want to mention that the Department has always funded the 
research for Gulf War illness, which I think has enormous 
implications for the future as well as the past. We must not 
only make sure that our people are treated right from previous 
service but also ensure that we find the cause so that we can 
treat the people who will be subjected to possible chemical 
warfare in the future. I do not see enough in this year's 
budget submission for this, so I would like to just point that 
out and say that I hope that you will be amenable to continuing 
that research for the cures and the potential vaccines that we 
will need for our servicemembers who might be exposed to 
chemical warfare in the field in the future.
    I thank you and I will have a few questions later.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you. Senator Feinstein.


                 statement of senator dianne feinstein


    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Gentlemen, I didn't start out quite where Senator Hollings is 
in his remarks, but I must tell you, I have come to have a very 
great appreciation for how the Department is being run, for the 
leadership of the Secretary. For you, Mr. Wolfowitz, I have had 
occasion as you know through the briefings and intelligence to 
follow this, and I think you are doing a very impressive job 
and I just want to say that.
    Now I have some real concerns about this budget and I also 
want to speak to this. I think my first concern is that perhaps 
the force structure changes are not always attuned to this new 
warfare, which is asymmetrical, which is probably going to be 
with us for a long time, where there is going to be a great 
deal of difficulty in sorting out combatants from 
noncombatants, and where the type of warfare may not always be 
the same as it is in Afghanistan where you have the ability for 
the Northern Alliance to do much of the groundwork and we just 
use our technology in the air with great success.
    That if this war on terrorism is going to be sustained and 
no one knows really what victory actually will be, that kind of 
privileged position is not always going to be there, and so I 
have a concern as to whether our force structure is really 
adequate to reflect this kind of a war concept.
    I also believe that because we are in this and we are in it 
for a sustained period of time, we no longer have the relative 
luxury to fund systems with questionable applicability, 
particularly related to the missile defense systems. I am very 
concerned about the continued priority the Department is 
placing on the development of a national missile defense 
program for which I can see little applicability in the war 
that we are actually going to be sustaining most likely for the 
next decade, I hope not, but it is very likely that that could 
be the fallout. And so I am concerned that the testing, the 
cost, and strategic and arms control implications of the 
current missile defense plan may well detract valuable 
resources, time and attention from more pressing security 
needs. I am willing to support a judicious testing program, 
because I think it is important to do so, but I have real 
questions about the administration's development and deployment 
plan and I hope to ask about that in my questions.
    I also have concern about the fact that the Department is 
asking for the 44 F-18s, the 12 C-17s, the joint strike 
fighter, the F-22, all of these planes, and I wonder frankly if 
they are all necessary and what the priority is if there is a 
priority. I mean, I know the joint strike fighter is not going 
to come on line soon enough to provide the kind of 
interservicing we had hoped for, but nonetheless, these are 
significant new requests.
    So, the bottom line is I look forward to discussing that 
with you and also this $10 billion fund that is there which 
concerns me because I have reread the resolution we passed to 
authorize the action, the military action against those who 
were responsible for 9/11 or connected to 9/11. I recognize the 
word connected may also authorize other things, but to put in 
really $10 billion seems to me, significantly reduces the 
Congress's opportunity to exercise the purse strings as we are 
entitled to do.
    So those areas of my concern and I just want to thank you 
for the very good work that you and the Secretary have done up 
to this point, and I look forward to having an opportunity to 
ask these questions at the appropriate time. Thanks, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Domenici.


                 statement of senator pete v. domenici


    Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 
say it is good to have you here, and my comments are going to 
be brief.
    First, I want to say things have been going our way for a 
change. This was a very difficult war to fight, and frankly I 
am very proud of the way it has progressed, I commend the 
Department, the Secretary, those who have helped him such as 
yourself, and obviously the President for his leadership. There 
is a long way to go however.
    We have also been fortunate in that the recession that we 
were all worried about may have already bottomed out. 
Economists are now saying this may be the shallowest recession 
we have had in modern days, and already the gross domestic 
product is moving into a positive mode from having been only 2 
or 3 months in the mildest of recessionary numbers.
    Our country was faced with both a recession and a war, and 
there were a lot of people who wondered how long we could 
continue to fund our defense and other needs and have a 
recession. I think we are going to have that question answered 
because I think we are going to be out of the recession. From 
my standpoint the question is, do you have a need for 
everything that you have asked us for and if you do, then we 
ought to fund it. If there are some things we can save money 
on, it does not mean we ought to give you less, because 
obviously there are some things that should be funded that are 
not. I think it is just as important that you tell us, tell 
this committee, what you think would be helpful that did not 
get funded because I believe that this is the time to send the 
right signals and to get started with reference to science and 
technology. I am somewhat concerned with whether we are doing 
enough in that area, Doctor, and I would like your comments in 
terms of research, science and technology.
    Actually we are living in an era when about every 10 years 
we completely change technology as I understand it. My 
questions will be directed in that area. I thank you once 
again; it is a pleasure to serve on this committee, and I hope 
we will be able to do you justice and do the Defense Department 
justice.
    My thought, if nobody else raised it, and if they did I 
want to lend my voice to it, is about the $10 billion that you 
seek in an emergency fund that would not be appropriated for 
specific programs or items. I think that is new and unique, and 
I don't know how we can do that and how it sets itself into the 
budget. So I believe there has to be some discussion about that 
$10 billion which you want us to give you the flexibility on; I 
am not sure that we can do that. But I do share the basic 
underpinnings of that request; you do need flexibility in fast 
moving times. You might need a reserve for flexibility, but I 
am not sure that we know how to do that.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Dorgan.


                  statement of senator byron l. dorgan


    Senator Dorgan. Dr. Wolfowitz, thank you very much for what 
you are doing, and Secretary Rumsfeld and the administration. I 
think things are going very well and the Congress and the 
American people appreciate that. I along with some of my 
colleagues was in central Asia some weeks ago, and I could not 
be more proud of the men and women who are serving our country 
and I know that they recognize your leadership and the support 
of the Congress in that service.
    Dr. Wolfowitz, I would like to call you at some point if 
you will take my telephone call to visit about a couple issues. 
There is no money in this budget to buy airplanes for the Air 
National Guard. We have some of the best pilots flying the 
oldest planes on Block 15, the F-16s, and you know, we need to 
do something about that. We talked to the previous 
administration about it as well, and we need to do something to 
reconcile that issue.
    I would also like to just mention in the area of defense 
microelectronics, there was an ad in the Post the other day to 
balance our procurement for weapons with information. As all of 
us know, the Department of Defense has trouble keeping up with 
advances in commercial electronics and information systems. New 
generations of microchips are being introduced in the 
commercial world roughly once every 18 months and by the time 
DOD deploys a system, its electronics are often several 
generations behind those being marketed in the commercial 
world. I hope that we can talk about the defense 
microelectronics activity. Senator Stevens and I have done some 
work in that area and I think it is an increasingly important 
area that we recognize, especially in view of what is happening 
in central Asia.
    But again, let me--I know you came to testify and let me 
allow you to do that. Thank you for being here and I hope we 
can pursue a couple of these issues to help us address them.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Shelby.


                 statement of senator richard c. shelby


    Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
my entire statement be made part of the record.
    Senator Inouye. Without objection.
    Senator Shelby. And other than that, I just want to welcome 
Secretary Wolfowitz to the committee and I look forward to what 
he was to say. But I also want to join the chorus of the 
committee in commending not only Secretary Wolfowitz, but 
Secretary Rumsfeld, for the leadership that you have shown over 
at the Pentagon. I want to say thank you on behalf of my 
constituents and I think a lot of the American people.
    [The statements follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby
    I want to applaud President Bush and our top defense officials for 
sending us an fiscal year 2003 defense budget that I think all of us 
should be encouraged about. While budget restraints necessitate that 
the push and pull continues for control of limited dollars to fund 
competing requirements such as recapitalization and transformation, I 
do believe that things are looking up at the Department of Defense. The 
past decade has been very difficult indeed. Without congressional 
action to add defense funding during those years, I would hate to see 
where the Department would be now.
    The Bush Administration's $379 billion request signals a firm 
commitment to winning the war on terrorism and to building a force 
that, through transformation, will become even more dominant across the 
full spectrum of military operations. After September 11, when we look 
both internally and abroad and assess the threats we face, it is 
increasingly clear that we must pass this defense budget and continue 
to work aggressively to build our defensive and offensive capabilities 
in future years. The devastating attacks in New York and against the 
Pentagon prove that we are vulnerable. It is sobering to realize just 
how vulnerable we are to the myriad of possible attacks we could suffer 
at the hands of terrorists. While the United States was the target of 
the attack on September 11, our allies are also vulnerable to attack. I 
am increasingly concerned when I look across the Atlantic and assess 
the military capabilities of our allies. I see our most important 
partners and friends whose militaries are falling further and further 
behind our own in funding and technology.
    I also hear increasingly harsh rhetoric focused on the 
Administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism and our 
willingness to act unilaterally. While we are stronger with our allies 
standing beside us and contributing to this war on terrorism, I do not 
believe that we should let the coalition dictate our interests. I look 
to the Bush Administration to explore the ``capabilities gap'' that 
exists and continue to work closely with our allies to promote 
cooperation as we move to the next phase of the war on terrorism.
    I intend to do what I can to support and help President Bush, 
Secretary Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz to win this war as 
well as rebuild our armed forces and shape them for the future. These 
efforts will continue to require a lot from our President and military 
officials. President Bush has provided outstanding leadership in these 
efforts and continues to communicate in very clear and precise terms 
with both the American people and with those abroad who would seek to 
do us harm.
    An honest budgetary assessment of the threats and the risks we face 
if we are not prepared is represented in the fiscal year 2003 defense 
request before us. We must invest in our men and women in uniform, in 
robust research and development programs, in new and technologically 
superior weapons, in airlift and naval assets that enable force 
projection, and in recapitalization of legacy systems that will form 
the bridge to our future objective forces. Each service has needs and 
we should work very hard to see that as many are met as possible.
    We face a delicate balancing act--near and long term threats with 
limited dollars to buy what we need across the services to modernize 
our military. The Bush Administration has presented us with an 
encouraging defense request of $379 billion that is projected to grow 
by $400 billion over the next five years. The war we are waging and the 
changes we seek to make within our military will take time and will be 
expensive, but I am confident that we will be victorious on both 
fronts.

                    ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS

    Senator Inouye. The subcommittee has also received 
statements from Senators Kohl and Cochran, which will be 
inserted into the Record.
    [The statements follow:]
                Prepared Statement of Senator Herb Kohl
    In his budget request the President proposes a massive increase in 
defense spending for a nation at war. This budget calls for $379 
billion in fiscal year 2003 defense spending--a $48 billion increase--
to fund pay raises, cover rising health care costs, procure high tech 
weapons, and prosecute the on-going war on terrorism.
    Especially during wartime, we are reminded of how much our security 
depends upon maintaining a well trained and equipped fighting force. I 
am encouraged by the investment this budget makes in our soldiers, 
providing a significant pay raise and boosting the Base Housing 
Allowance to keep the benefits of military service competitive with the 
private sector.
    I am aware that a significant portion of the budget increase will 
go to funding the increasing costs associated with providing health 
care to our soldiers, retirees, and their families. General health care 
inflation and the new Tricare for Life program provide significant 
funding challenges, but we must keep our commitment to providing first-
class health care to our military personnel.
    The events of September 11th and our on-going campaign in 
Afghanistan demonstrate the vital importance of transforming our 
nation's military to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Our 
experience in Afghanistan has highlighted the critical role that 
intelligence, special forces, and high-tech, guided munitions play in 
modern combat. But if we are to make a full investment in transforming 
our military into a more mobile force, then we must have the leadership 
to make tough choices. In reviewing this budget, I am concerned that 
while it makes the right investments in developing and procuring the 
weapons of the future, it fails to make the necessary cuts in legacy 
systems.
    This funding boost is the largest in two decades and the major 
portion of an overall budget that will return us to deficit spending. 
While the on-going war calls for increased spending, the DOD must 
redouble current efforts to improve business practices to get the most 
out of our tax dollars.
                                 ______
                                 
               Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
    Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleagues in welcoming 
Secretaries Paul Wolfowitz and Dov Zakheim here today. I look forward 
to working with them and our Defense leadership to sustain and improve 
our current capabilities while our military transforms strategies and 
platforms for the 21st century.
    I am pleased that this year's budget request attempts to address 
some of the concerns of this Subcommittee, including fighting and 
winning the war on terror, maintaining morale and readiness, 
transforming the military for the 21st century, improving Department of 
Defense management operations, as well as providing a significant 
development and deployment program for missile defenses. However, I am 
troubled that some areas still fall short of the mark, particularly 
ship construction. I understand that the Quadrennial Defense Review 
calls for a minimum floor of 310 hulls to support our maritime 
strategy. Further, Defense and Navy leadership have stated a 
requirement for 340-375 ships while the current shipbuilding rate is 
decreasing. I am concerned by the continued downward trend in 
shipbuilding and its potential negative impact on our Nation and our 
Navy's ability to maintain a credible forward presence and perform 
required missions. Additionally, I am concerned with the harm that the 
construction rate is having on our shipbuilding industrial base and its 
ability to meet future requirements.
    Full commitment should be given to development of the DD(X) program 
and its family of destroyer, cruiser, and littoral ship platforms. It 
will provide the operating efficiencies, stealth, and power projection 
that will enable us to prevail in future conflicts with less impact to 
our sailors and Marines.
    A renewed commitment should also be given to the Marine Corps-Navy 
team in the amphibious arena. Modern strategy points to maneuvering and 
presence in the littorals, yet the amphibious shipbuilding program 
reflects only five ships through fiscal year 2007. I look forward to 
your testimony.

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

                SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL WOLFOWITZ

    Dr. Wolfowitz. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it's 
an honor to appear before this committee. We are in the 
presence of three decorated veterans from World War II, members 
of that greatest generation, and I'm in the presence of a 
committee that has been in the forefront of providing the 
resources that have enabled our servicemen and women to 
accomplish what they are doing for this Nation's security.

                 RESOURCES FOR THIS HISTORIC CHALLENGE

    We do indeed face enormous challenges, in some ways not as 
big perhaps in terms of the scale or the resources involved, 
but in terms of the stakes involved, in some ways as big as 
that great challenge of World War II. We are faced as we are 
always faced with in wartime with these difficult issues of 
priorities, and Mr. Chairman, you referred to that in your 
opening remarks and I'm sure we will in the questions, but I 
think we all owe an enormous debt, an enormous vote of thanks 
to what our military has been able to accomplish already so far 
in this campaign.
    If I had come to you in June and said we needed extra money 
in order to be able to base forces in Kazakhstan, not only 
would you not have believed me, I'm not sure I would have 
believed myself. I wouldn't have even been able to tell you 
that that was in Uzbekistan. We are now performing functions 
today that were in no military plan as of September 11th, and 
we're doing them I think with great effectiveness.
    And I believe, although one has to realize that there is 
still a very long way to go, I think it's unquestionable that 
the success so far in that campaign has done a great deal to 
protect Americans here at home. Secretary Rumsfeld has said no 
amount of defenses and barriers and protective activities, and 
no amount of hunkering down can protect us from every possible 
way the terrorists can attack. Therefore, while we have to take 
security measures and we're taking them on an enormous scale, 
and I might say not just in the FBI or Customs, but also 
billions of dollars and tens of thousands of people in the 
armed services are engaged in protecting our facilities here in 
the United States.
    But by taking the war to the enemy and by doing it as 
effectively as our men and women have been able to do, I 
believe has made a significant contribution to the fact that so 
far, and I can only say so far, that they haven't struck again. 
It's not that they're not trying. We have the evidence of Mr. 
Reid, who nearly killed 150 people on a civilian airliner, who 
is clearly part of that same network. We have intelligence 
every day that says they are still planning.
    So there may be some downs as well as some ups, and I think 
Senator Domenici said, it's nice that things are going our way 
for a change, and they are going our way for a change. Things 
may not always be going our way. We've got to have the same 
kind of staying power for this conflict that your generation 
had in World War II.
    I think we can say thanks that we are able to accomplish 
this campaign, this war, with a defense budget that even with 
this very large increase, will be less than 3.5 percent of our 
Gross Domestic Product (GDP). I don't believe there is any time 
in history that I'm aware of, certainly not in the history of 
the 20th century, when we ever were able to go to war with that 
small a defense burden. I hope it will stay at that level, but 
I think we should appreciate how much is accomplished with a 
relatively small piece.
    As we look at priorities, it's not to shortchange any of 
the other things that other agencies have to do for our 
security or related activities that the State Department does 
to make this campaign possible, but I do believe that the 
priority does need to be on all of those activities conducted 
by government that can help make not only our citizens today 
safer but to provide a free and safe future for our children 
and grandchildren.
    Mr. Chairman, I have a much longer statement that I would 
like to submit for the record, and if you will bear with me for 
maybe 10 minutes, I would like to just summarize the main 
points in it.
    Senator Inouye. Without objection.

             ACCOMPLISHING SEVERAL MISSIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY

    Dr. Wolfowitz. We are in fact trying to do two major tasks 
at the same time. We are trying to fight a war on terrorism. We 
are also trying to prepare our forces for the conflicts that 
might come a decade from now or even longer, and the defense 
forces of any particular year are very much the product of 
investments that were made a decade or two decades before. So 
even as we're fighting this war, we need to be certain that 
we're doing everything we can to make sure that our successors 
10 or 20 years from now have those capabilities they need to 
protect our country in the future.
    When the Cold War ended, Mr. Chairman, we began a very 
substantial draw down of our defense forces and our budgets, 
which was appropriate to do so. We cashed a large peace 
dividend, lowering the level of our defense burden by half of 
what it was at Cold War peak. Much of that, as I said, was an 
appropriate adjustment to the great improvement in our security 
that resulted from victory in the Cold War. But ultimately, 
that draw down went too far.
    While our commitments around the world stayed the same and 
even grew in some cases, our country spent much of the 1990s 
living off of investments made in the Cold War instead of 
making new investments to address the threats of this new 
century. As I discussed with this committee last year, even 
before September 11, we faced the urgent need to replenish 
critical accounts. After September 11, we find ourselves facing 
the additional challenge of accomplishing three significant 
missions at the same time. We can only accomplish those three 
missions, fighting the war on terror, supporting our people, 
and selectively modernizing the forces we have and transforming 
our Armed Forces for wars of the future, with proper 
investments over a sustained period.

                    RISING COSTS AND MUST-PAY BILLS

    And we have to accomplish these missions in an environment 
of rising costs, particularly rising costs for the most 
critical element of the force, our people. Indeed, if one wants 
to understand properly why we are here for such a large 
increase, a $48 billion increase, I think you need to 
understand that the 2003 budget addresses a variety of must-pay 
bills, and many of them are personnel accounts. It includes a 
$14.1 billion increase for retiree health care and pay raises. 
If we don't pay our people properly, we risk jeopardizing that 
critical element of the force.
    There are other bills such as realistically pricing the 
systems that we buy and realistically costing our activities, 
that's another $7.4 billion. There is $6.7 billion to cover 
inflation, and $19.4 billion including the contingency fund, 
for the war on terror. Added together, those bills come to 
$47.6 billion, which is why President Bush sent to Congress a 
2003 defense budget request of $379 billion, a $48 billion 
increase from the 2002 budget. And if you do that arithmetic, 
Mr. Chairman, you can see that the only reason we are able to 
have a considerable amount of money to invest in new programs 
after paying all of those bills is because we have in fact 
reallocated priorities, killed programs, and made hard choices 
and smart choices.

                      NEW DIRECTIONS FROM THE QDR

    The 2003 budget request was guided by the results of last 
year's strategy review and the Quadrennial Defense Review 
(QDR). Out of the intense debate that led to those reviews, we 
reached agreement within the Department on the urgent need for 
real changes on our defense strategy.
    Among the new directions set in the QDR, I've highlighted 
three as among the most important. First, we decided to move 
away from the two major theater war force sizing construct to a 
new approach that instead places greater emphasis on deterrence 
in four critical theaters, backed by the ability to swiftly 
defeat two aggressors at the same time while preserving the 
option for one rather than two major offensives to occupy an 
aggressor's capital and replace the regime.
    Second, to confront a world marked by surprise and 
substantial uncertainty, we concluded that we needed to shift 
our planning from the threat-based model that has guided our 
thinking in the past to a capabilities-based model that is more 
appropriate for a future that is highly uncertain.
    Third, that capabilities-based approach places great 
emphasis on defining where we want to go with the 
transformation of our forces.
    In the testimony that follows, I'm going to address where 
we are putting dollars and resources behind that 
transformation. As Secretary Rumsfeld has said, transformation 
is about more than just dollars, it's about more than bombs and 
bullets and dollars and cents, it's about new approaches, it's 
about culture, it's about mindset and ways of thinking of 
things. And that by the way, Mr. Chairman, has been 
characteristic of major military transformations in the past, 
where frequently we have seen two adversaries, one of whom was 
equally equipped with the same new equipment, but one of which 
understood the implications and the organizational doctrine, 
the cultural changes required to use it effectively and the 
other didn't.
    Indeed, that is part of the reason why the British, many 
think that is why the British and French lost the Battle of 
France in a mere 4 weeks to an enemy that was no stronger in 
equipment accounts. In just the few months of the current 
campaign, we have seen a great deal of that kind of change 
underway.
    To mention just one example, not long ago I had the 
opportunity to be briefed by an Air Force F-15 pilot who had 
been persuaded to forego a rated pilot's job to instead fly an 
unmanned Predator aircraft from a location far from the field 
of battle. For a pilot destined for the cockpit, it was a 
difficult choice for her, yes, it was a woman pilot, especially 
given concerns among pilots that such an assignment could 
stymie their careers. There is no question that unmanned 
vehicles have made a significant impact in the current 
campaign, and promise even greater operational impacts in the 
future, which is why the Air Force leadership today is working 
hard to encourage other such trailblazers to become Predator 
pilots and help define a new concept of operations. So at this 
moment, what it means to be a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air 
Force is undergoing a transformation.
    It's also important to note that transformation doesn't 
mean transforming the entire force overnight. It begins with 
leveraging the systems we have with new technology and new 
thinking, and as we begin by changing only a small percentage 
of the force, we can indeed change the capability of the entire 
force. That is our aim, and by giving some definition to what 
transformation is and putting money behind those ideas, we 
believe we have already energized the defense team in dramatic 
ways, but we can energize a transformation that will be ongoing 
and exponential and provide the right forces to our successors 
a decade from now.
    In the QDR and the review that defined our investment 
priorities in the 2003-2007 budget, we identified six key 
transformational goals, and I would like to discuss how this 
budget addresses those goals. I would note that the budget as a 
whole requests some $53.9 billion for research, development, 
test and evaluation (RDT&E). That's a $5.5 billion increase 
over fiscal year 2002. And it requests $71.9 billion for 
procurement, that's a $7.6 billion increase over fiscal year 
2002. It funds 13 new transformational programs and accelerates 
funding for 22 more existing programs.
    Out of that total investment of some $125, $126 billion in 
procurement and RDT&E, the transformation programs that I am 
going to discuss in those six key categories account for 
roughly $21 billion, or 17 percent of our investment funding, 
rising to 22 percent over the course of the Future Years 
Defense Program (FYDP). Let me discuss the details of that $21 
billion into the six key categories as follows:
    First, our highest transformational priority and identified 
as such even before September 11 is protecting our bases of 
operation and homeland defense. We know that both terrorists 
and state supporters of terrorism are actively looking to build 
or buy nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass 
destruction. We also know that a number of hostile regimes, 
many of them by the way who also support terrorism, are 
investing heavily in ballistic missile capabilities that 
threaten our allies and even to threaten the homeland of the 
United States. To meet our objective in making homeland defense 
the Department's top priority, the President's 2003 budget 
funds a number of programs, including not only a $7.8 billion 
request for our refocused and revitalized missile defense 
research and testing program, but it is also important to note 
that the budget invests $10.5 billion for a variety of programs 
directly addressed to combating terrorism. That's almost 
double, in fact slightly more than double the amount that we 
were investing in that area just 2 years ago, and approximately 
$3 billion more that we are budgeting for missile defense in 
fiscal year 2003. That is due in very great measure to new 
priorities that we have to address in the wake of September 11, 
needs that range from the immediate necessities of hiring 
guards and building jersey barriers to the long-term 
necessities of training first responders and refining our 
intelligence response to the ongoing threat of terrorism.
    Of that $18.3 billion I just identified, we consider some 
$8 billion of that to be truly transformational. And I should 
note that in the totals I'm giving you for transformational 
programs, we are applying a pretty tight definition to what we 
consider transformational.
    Our second transformational goal from the QDR is denying 
enemies sanctuary. Again, this was identified as a high 
priority long before September 11. It has obviously been a 
major capability we have been using in this campaign. As we 
root out al Qaeda and members of the Taliban, it is readily 
apparent how important it is to be able to rob our enemies of 
places to hide and function.
    The key to that is long-range precision strike and I would 
emphasize that long-range precision strike is not just about 
heavy bombers. It's also done with ground forces and most 
importantly, it's done most effectively when we can link ground 
and air assets together. During my last tour at the Pentagon, 
Mr. Chairman, during the Persian Gulf War, where we worked so 
hard to try to stop the Iraqi scud attacks on Israel, we had an 
almost total inability to take advantage of what we had in the 
air and link it with the brave people we put in on the ground. 
Obviously we have come a long way in the last 10 years in what 
we've been able to do in Afghanistan, but we need to go much 
further.
    As we have seen in the campaign in Afghanistan, Special 
Forces mounted on horseback have used modern communications to 
direct strikes from 50-year-old B-52s. When Secretary Rumsfeld 
was asked why he was introducing the horse cavalry back into 
modern war, he said it was all part of the transformation plan, 
and indeed it is. Transformation isn't just developing new 
systems, it's also about using old systems in new ways with new 
doctrines, new types of organization, and new operational 
concepts.
    The fiscal year 2003 budget funds a number of programs 
designed to help us deny sanctuary to our enemies. It includes 
roughly $1 billion of increased spending on unmanned aerial 
vehicles. It includes another billion dollars for conversion, 
to start the conversion of four Trident nuclear submarines from 
a Cold War nuclear mission into stealthy, high endurance 
conventional strike submarines.
    It's important to note as I say, that we are applying a 
very strict definition to which programs we consider 
transformational. As an illustration, there are many things in 
this budget not included in these figures. For example in this 
budget request, we're asking for nearly $2 billion, $1.7 
billion precisely, for funding to increase production of the 
joint direct attack munitions and other precision guided 
munitions which have proven critical to making transformation 
work.
    With just that strict definition, the fiscal year 2003 
budget requests $3.2 billion for transformational programs to 
support that objective of denying sanctuary to our adversaries, 
and $16.9 billion over the FYDP, an increase of 157 percent.
    The third critical category is countering the very 
determined efforts of those who want to keep us out of their 
operating areas through what we call anti-access strategies, by 
attacking our ships at sea or denying us access to bases or 
attacking our bases. We see both in what our adversaries say 
and what they do that they recognize that if they have to go 
head to head with American forces, they will lose. If they can 
keep us from being able to operate in their area, it's their 
only chance. We have to be able to counter that. Overall, the 
fiscal year 2003 budget requests $7.4 billion for programs to 
support that goal of projecting power over vast distances, and 
$53 billion over the FYDP, an increase of 21 percent.
    Our fourth key goal is leveraging information technology, 
the technology that was key to linking horse cavalry and B-52s. 
In that example, less than 20 minutes from the time a Non 
Commissioned Officer (NCO) on horseback entered key information 
into his laptop, Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) launched 
from a B-52 miles away were dropping on enemy positions just a 
few hundred meters from that NCO, who was obviously a brave 
man, I would point out. Clearly a key transformation goal is to 
leverage advances in information technology to seamlessly 
connect United States forces to insure that they see the same 
precise real-time picture of the battlefield.
    The fiscal year 2003 budget funds a number of programs 
designed to leverage information technology. One technology 
that we're investing in heavily which has very large future 
potential is laser communications, a promising experimental 
that if successful will give wide-band satellites the ability 
to pass data to each other at speeds measured in gigabits per 
second, as opposed to megabits per second, a significant and 
dramatic improvement.
    I would note, Mr. Chairman, I don't think you had to worry 
about gigabits during World War II, but it's impressive to see 
what the young men and women, for example, at Fort Lewis in 
Washington, what they were able to do with computers. It's 
almost second nature to them, and one example that we got at 
that same Air Force briefing I referred to, we were told about 
how the people netting these information gathering networks 
together are operating in chat rooms, operating six chat rooms 
at a time. We don't have to teach them the chat room product, 
they come into the service already knowing this remarkable 
capability.
    The fiscal year 2003 budget requests $2.5 billion for 
programs to support this objective of leveraging information 
technology.
    Our fifth objective as information warfare takes an 
increasingly significant role in modern war is to be able to 
protect our information networks and to attack or cripple those 
of our adversaries. Many of the programs in that area are 
classified, it is a new area, it's one that I think we have to 
work even harder. The fiscal year 2003 budget requests $174 
million for programs to support that objective, an increase of 
28 percent over the FYDP.
    Finally, our sixth priority for transformation is space. 
Space is the ultimate high ground. The fiscal year 2003 budget 
requests about $200 million to strengthen space capabilities 
and $1.5 billion over the FYDP, an increase of 145 percent.
    As important as transformation is, Mr. Chairman, it is even 
more important to take care of our people. They are the key, 
not only to the future but also to the present. The men and 
women who wear our Nation's uniform are doing us proud. 
Military service by its nature asks our service members to 
assume risks and sacrifices that the rest of us do not. We 
should not ask those who put themselves in harm's way to forego 
competitive pay or quality housing. The President's fiscal year 
2003 budget requests $94 billion for military pay and 
allowances, including $1.9 billion for an across-the-board 4.1 
percent pay raise.
    It also makes major advances in lowering out of pocket 
housing costs for those living in private housing so that we 
will be able by 2005 to eliminate all out of pocket housing 
costs for our men and women in uniform.
    Just a word, Mr. Chairman, about cost savings. We 
understand that we have a requirement to make the best possible 
use of the very substantial resources that you and your 
colleagues and the American taxpayers are providing us. We have 
taken a realistic approach in looking at a number of programs 
and found areas where we can save money. We have proposed 
terminating a number of programs over the next 5 years that 
were not in line with the new defense strategy or were having 
program difficulties, including the DD-21, the Navy Area 
Missile Defense, some 18 Army Legacy programs and the 
Peacekeeper Missile. We also accelerated retirement of a number 
of aging and expensive to maintain capabilities such as the F-
14, DD-963 destroyers, and the Vietnam-era helicopters.
    We are also proceeding toward our goal of 15 percent 
reduction in headquarters staffing, and the Senior Executive 
Council is finding additional ways and will continue to find 
additional ways to manage the Department more efficiently.
    The budget as I mentioned at the beginning, reflects over 
$9 billion in redirected funds from acquisition program 
changes, management improvements and other initiatives, savings 
that help to fund transformation and other pressing 
requirements.
    Throughout this budget, Mr. Chairman, we were required to 
make some tough trade-offs. We were not able to meet our 
objective of lowering average age of tactical aircraft. 
However, we are investing in unmanned aircraft and in the F-22 
and the joint strike fighter, which require significant up-
front investments, but will not come on line for several years. 
While the budget proposes faster growth in science and 
technology, we have not yet met our goal of having 3 percent of 
the budget in that category. And we have not been able to fund 
ship building at replacement rates in 2003. Although our ships 
are relatively new, we've got to change that course or we will 
eventually find ourselves with a substantially reduced force.
    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, a budget of $379 billion is 
obviously a great deal of money, but it is misleading to 
compare this budget to budgets of the Cold War or to the 
defense budgets of other countries. We do not face other 
countries' budgets on the battlefield; we fight their forces. 
The budget of the Taliban would have been a tiny fraction of 
that of the United States. Yet, it has been unquestionably 
important that we have had the capability to deploy forces 
thousands of miles away rapidly and effectively to an 
unexpected theater of operations to defeat that force.
    Our success thus far in meeting this challenge only 
confirms that ours is the best military force in the world. We 
must have the best military force in the world. We can't afford 
to have less than that.
    The New York comptroller's office estimated the local 
economic cost of the September 11 attacks on New York City 
alone will add up to about $100 billion over the next 3 years. 
Estimates of the cost to the national economy from September 11 
range from about $170 billion last year and estimates range as 
high as almost $250 billion a year in lost productivity, sales, 
jobs, airline revenue, and countless other areas. The cost of 
human lives and the pain and suffering of so many thousands of 
Americans is incalculable.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    The President's budget addresses our country's need to 
fight the war on terror, to support our men and women in 
uniform, and to prepare for the challenges of the 21st century. 
This committee has been and continues to be an important 
safeguard of the long-term interests of our great nation, and I 
know you understand there is nothing more important than 
preserving peace and security. We look forward to working, 
continuing to work with this committee to insure that peace and 
security is what we can leave to generations to come. Thank you 
for your patience.
    [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Dr. Paul Wolfowitz
                              introduction
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: This Committee has 
provided our country great bipartisan support and strong leadership, 
and our relationship with the Committee and its staff has been truly 
outstanding from beginning to end. I appreciate the opportunity to 
return to this committee to testify in support of the 2003 defense 
budget request. Since we met last summer, a great deal has changed, of 
course. I look forward to addressing some of these changes with you.
    One of the greatest--and gravest--changes was brought by September 
11th--a day that changed our nation forever. September 11th has taught 
us once again that when it comes to America's defense, we must spend 
what is necessary to protect our freedom, our security and prosperity--
not just for this generation, but to preserve peace and security for 
our children and our grandchildren.
    Today, we are engaged in the enormous task of fighting a global war 
on terrorism. As difficult as it is to think about other challenges in 
the middle of waging this war, it is essential that we think beyond our 
current effort if we are to face the security challenges and conflicts 
that are certain to arise throughout this century.
    The 2003 Defense Budget request is designed to address the 
President's goals in five key areas: (1) fighting and winning the war 
on terror; (2) defending the American people from a range of potential 
threats, from securing the homeland to defending against ballistic and 
cruise missiles; (3) restoring morale and readiness of the Armed 
Forces; (4) transforming the force; and (5) managing the Defense 
Department in a more business-like manner. Many elements of the budget 
address more than one of these goals. However, my remarks today will 
focus largely on what we are doing to transform the force, a critical 
area in which we need Congress's help.
    When the Cold War ended, the United States began a very substantial 
draw down of our defense forces and our budgets. We cashed a large 
``peace dividend,'' lowering the level of our defense burden by half 
from the Cold War peak. Much of that was an appropriate adjustment to 
the great improvement in our security that resulted from the end of the 
Cold War. The draw down, however, ultimately went too far.
    While our commitments around the world stayed the same and even 
grew in some cases, our country spent much of the 1990s living off 
investments made during the Cold War, instead of making new investments 
to address the threats of this new century. As I discussed with this 
committee last year, even before September 11th, we faced the urgent 
need to replenish critical accounts. After September 11th, we find 
ourselves facing the additional challenges of accomplishing three 
significant missions at the same time: First, to win the global war on 
terrorism; second, to restore capabilities by making investments in 
procurement, people and modernization; and, third, to prepare for the 
future by accelerating the transformation for the 21st Century.
    It will be difficult and demanding to tackle all three of these 
missions at once, but we must do it--and without delay. Even as we 
fight the war on terror, potential adversaries study our methods and 
capabilities, and they plan for how they can take advantage of what 
they perceive to be our weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Now is 
precisely the moment we must begin to build forces that can frustrate 
those plans and provide us with the capabilities we need to win the 
wars of the coming decades.
    We can only accomplish the Defense Department's three missions--
fighting the war on terrorism, supporting our people and selectively 
modernizing the forces we have now, and transforming our Armed Forces 
for the wars of the future--with proper investments over a sustained 
period. And we must accomplish these missions in an environment of 
rising costs, particularly for that most critical element of the 
force--our people. Comparisons have been drawn between this budget 
request and those of the Cold War--but, it is important to consider 
that we simply could not buy the quality of people that comprise 
today's force, nor could we equip and train them properly, at Cold War 
prices.
    The 2003 budget addresses ``must pay'' bills such as retiree health 
care and pay raises ($14.1 billion)--if we don't pay our people 
properly, we risk losing this critical element of the force; and there 
are other bills such as realistic costing ($7.4 billion); inflation 
($6.7 billion): and the war on terrorism ($19.4 billion). Added 
together, these bills come to $47.6 billion. That is why President Bush 
sent to Congress a 2003 defense budget request of $379 billion--a $48 
billion increase from the 2002 budget, and the largest increase since 
the early 1980s.
                          new defense strategy
    The 2003 budget request was guided by the results of last year's 
strategy review and the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), both of which 
involved an unprecedented degree of debate and discussion among the 
Department's most senior leaders. Out of this intense debate, we 
reached agreement on the urgent need for real changes in our defense 
strategy.
    I might add that our conclusions have not gone unnoticed. One 
foreign observer reports that the QDR contains ``the most profound 
implications'' of the four major defense reviews conducted since the 
end of the Cold War. What is most compelling about this analysis is 
that it appears in a Chinese journal. That Chinese observer thinks the 
QDR's conclusions are important as a blueprint for where we go from 
here--and we think so, too.
    My statement today addresses how the President's budget intends to 
meet this blueprint, shaped by the needs of the environment we face 
today and the environment we could face in the decades to come.
    Among the new directions set in the QDR, the following are among 
the most important:
    First, we decided to move away from the two Major Theater War (MTW) 
force sizing construct, which called for maintaining forces capable of 
marching on and occupying the capitals of two adversaries and changing 
their regimes--at the same time. The new approach instead places 
greater emphasis on deterrence in four critical theaters, backed by the 
ability to swiftly defeat two aggressors at the same time, while 
preserving the option for one major offensive to occupy an aggressor's 
capital and replace the regime. By removing the requirement to maintain 
a second occupation force, we can free up resources for various lesser 
contingencies that might face us and also be able to invest for the 
future.
    Second, to confront a world marked by surprise and substantial 
uncertainty, we agreed that we needed to shift our planning from the 
``threat-based'' model that has guided our thinking in the past to a 
``capabilities-based'' model for the future. We don't know who may 
threaten us or when or where. But, we do have some sense of what they 
may threaten us with and how. And we also have a sense of what 
capabilities can provide us important new advantages.
    Third, this capabilities-based approach places great emphasis on 
defining where we want to go with the transformation of our forces. 
Transformation, as Secretary Rumsfeld has said, ``is about an awful lot 
more than bombs and bullets and dollars and cents; it's about new 
approaches, it's about culture, it's about mindset and ways of thinking 
of things.''
    Even in just the few months of the current campaign, we have seen a 
great deal of that kind of change underway. To mention just one 
example, not long ago, an Air Force F-15 pilot had to be persuaded to 
forego a rated pilot's job to fly, instead, an unmanned Predator 
aircraft from a location far from the field of battle. For a pilot 
destined for the cockpit, it was a difficult choice for her--especially 
given concerns among some pilots that such an assignment could stymie 
their careers. But there is no question that unmanned vehicles have 
made a significant impact in the current campaign and promise even 
greater operational impacts in the future--which is why the Air Force 
leadership is working hard to encourage other such trailblazers to 
become Predator pilots and help define a new concept of operations. So, 
at this moment, what it means to be a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air 
Force is undergoing a transformation.
    It is also important to note that transformation cannot mean 
transforming the entire force overnight. It begins with leveraging the 
systems we have with new technology and new thinking. As we begin by 
changing only a small percentage of the force we can, in fact, change 
the capability of the entire force.
    That is our aim. And by giving some definition to what 
transformation is and putting money behind these ideas, we can energize 
the Defense team in dramatic ways, and energize a transformation that 
will be ongoing and exponential.
    We identified six key transformational goals that define our 
highest priorities for investments in the 2003-07 Future Years Defense 
Program (FYDP). First, to protect the U.S. homeland and forces 
overseas; second, to project and sustain power in distant theaters; 
third, to deny enemies sanctuary, or places where they can hide and 
function; fourth, to protect information networks from attack; fifth, 
to use information technology to link up U.S. forces so they can fight 
jointly; and sixth, to maintain unhindered access to space--and protect 
U.S. space capabilities from enemy attack.
    We reached these conclusions before September 11th, but our 
experiences since then have validated many of those conclusions, and 
reinforced the importance of continuing to move forward in these new 
directions. The 2003 budget request advances each of the six 
transformational goals by accelerating funding for the development of 
the transformational programs and by funding modernization programs 
that support transformation goals.
    The budget requests $53.9 billion for Research, Development, Test, 
and Evaluation (RDT&E)--a $5.5 billion increase over fiscal year 2002. 
It requests $71.9 billion for procurement--$68.7 billion in the 
procurement title--a $7.6 billion increase over fiscal year 2002--and 
$3.2 billion in the Defense Emergency Response Fund. It funds 13 new 
transformational programs, and accelerates funding for 22 more existing 
programs.
    All together, transformation programs account for roughly $21.1 
billion, or 17 percent, of investment funding (RDT&E and procurement) 
in the President's 2003 budget request--rising to 22 percent over the 
five year FYDP. Let me discuss the details of the $21.1 billion in each 
of the six categories that follow.
1. Protecting Bases of Operation/Homeland Defense
    It is obvious today that our first goal, protecting our bases of 
operation and homeland defense, is an urgent priority--especially since 
we know that both terrorists and state--supporters of terrorism are 
actively looking to build or buy nuclear, chemical and biological 
weapons of mass destruction.
    To meet our objective of making homeland defense the Department's 
top priority, the President's 2003 budget funds a number of programs. 
These include:
  --$300 million to create a Biological Defense Homeland Security 
        Support Program to improve U.S. capabilities to detect and 
        respond to biological attack against the American people and 
        our deployed forces.
  --$7.8 billion for a refocused and revitalized missile defense 
        research and testing program that will explore a wide range of 
        potential technologies that will be unconstrained by the ABM 
        Treaty after June 2002, including:
    --$623 million for the Patriot PAC III to protect our ground forces 
            from cruise missile and tactical ballistic missile attack.
    --$3.5 million for the Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser that can 
            be used by U.S. ground forces to destroy enemy rockets, 
            cruise missiles, artillery and mortar munitions.
    --$598 million for the Airborne Laser (ABL), a speed of light 
            ``directed energy'' weapon to attack enemy ballistic 
            missiles in the boost-phase of flight--deterring an 
            adversary's use of WMD since debris would likely land on 
            their own territory.
    --$534 million for an expanded test-bed for testing missile 
            intercepts;
    --$797 million for sea, air and space-based systems to defeat 
            missiles during their boost phase;
    It is important to note that the budget invests $10.5 billion for 
combating terrorism programs, which is $5.1 billion more than we were 
investing in that area just two years ago and approximately $3 billion 
more than we have budgeted on missile defense in 2003. That is due, in 
very great measure, to new priorities we must address in the wake of 
September 11th--needs that range from the immediate necessities of 
hiring guards and building jersey barriers to the long-term necessities 
of training first responders and refining our intelligence response to 
the on-going threat of terrorism. But, our commitment to missile 
defense remains as strong as ever--especially in the wake of 9/11, 
which is just a pale shadow of what adversaries armed with weapons of 
mass destruction could do.
    The budget invests $8 billion to support defense of the U.S. 
homeland and forces abroad--$45.8 billion over the five year Future 
Years Defense Plan (2003-07), an increase of 47 percent from the 
previous FYDP. In addition, the budget funds combat air patrols over 
major U.S. cities ($1.2 billion) and other requirements related to this 
transformation goal.
2. Denying Enemies Sanctuary
    The President's budget funds a number of programs to ensure 
adversaries know that if they attack, they will not be able to escape 
the reaches of the United States. As we root out al Qaeda and members 
of the Taliban, it is readily apparent how important it is to rob our 
enemies of places to hide and function--whether it be in caves, in 
cities, or on the run.
    Key to denying sanctuary is the development of new capabilities for 
long-range precision strike, which is not just about heavy bombers, but 
about linking ground and air assets together, including unmanned 
capabilities. It also includes the ability to insert deployable ground 
forces into denied areas and allow them to network with our long-range 
precision-strike assets.
    This is something we have seen in the campaign in Afghanistan. Our 
Special Forces, mounted on horseback, have used modern communications 
to communicate with and direct strikes from 50-year-old B-52s. 
Introducing the horse cavalry back into modern war, as Secretary 
Rumsfeld has said, ``was all part of the transformation plan.'' And it 
is. Transformation isn't always about new systems, but using old 
systems in new ways with new doctrines, new types of organization, new 
operational concepts.
    The President's 2003 budget funds a number of programs designed to 
help us meet our objective of denying sanctuary to enemies. They 
include:
  --$141 million to accelerate development of UAVs with new combat 
        capabilities.
  --$629 million for Global Hawk, a high-altitude unmanned vehicle that 
        provides reconnaissance, surveillance and targeting 
        information. We will procure three Air Force Global Hawks in 
        2003, and accelerate improvements such as electronics upgrades 
        and improved sensors, and begin development of a maritime 
        version.
  --$91 million for the Space-Based Radar, which will take a range of 
        reconnaissance and targeting missions now performed by aircraft 
        and move them to space, removing the risk to lives and the need 
        for over-flight clearance;
  --$54 million for development of a small diameter bomb, a much 
        smaller, lighter weapon that will allow fighters and bombers to 
        carry more ordnance and thus provide more kills per sortie;
  --$1 billion for conversion of four Trident nuclear submarines into 
        stealthy, high endurance SSGN Strike Submarines that can each 
        carry over 150 Tomahawk cruise missiles and up to 66 Special 
        Operations Forces into denied areas;
  --$30 million for advanced energetic materials and new earth 
        penetrator weapons to attack hardened and deeply buried 
        targets;
  --$961 million for the DD(X), which replaces the cancelled DD-21 
        destroyer program and could become the basis of a family of 
        21st Century surface combat ships built around revolutionary 
        stealth, propulsion, and manning technologies. Initial 
        construction of the first DD(X) ship is expected in fiscal year 
        2005.
    It is important to note that we have applied a very strict 
definition to which programs we include in these totals as 
transformational. Many things that enable transformation are not 
included in these figures. For example, the $1.7 billion in this budget 
for funding for the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and other 
precision guided munitions are, in fact, critical to making 
transformation work, but are not part of the total I have mentioned 
here.
    With that strict definition, the 2003 budget requests $3.2 billion 
for transformational programs to support our objective of denying 
sanctuary to America's adversaries, and $16.9 billion over the five 
year FYDP (2003-07)--an increase of 157 percent.
3. Projecting Power in Anti-access Areas
    A third critical category is countering the very determined efforts 
of those who want to keep us out of their operating areas through what 
we call anti-access strategies, by attacking our ships at sea or 
denying us access to bases or attacking our bases.
    Projecting and sustaining power in anti-access environments has 
been a necessity in the current campaign; circumstances forced us to 
operate from very great distances.
    In many other cases, U.S. forces depend on vulnerable foreign bases 
to operate--creating incentives for adversaries to develop ``access 
denial'' capabilities to keep us out of their neighborhoods.
    We must, therefore, reduce our dependence on predictable and 
vulnerable base structure, by exploiting a number of technologies that 
include longer-range aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and stealthy 
platforms, as well as reducing the amount of logistical support needed 
by our ground forces so we can deploy them rapidly in an agile, 
flexible way.
    The President's 2003 budget includes increased funds for a number 
of programs designed to help us project power in ``denied'' areas. 
These include:
  --$630 million for an expanded, upgraded military GPS that can help 
        U.S. forces pinpoint their position--and the location of their 
        targets--with unprecedented accuracy.
  --$5 million for research in support of the Future Maritime 
        Preposition Force of new, innovative ships that can receive 
        flown-in personnel and off-load equipment at sea, and support 
        rapid reinforcement of conventional combat operations. 
        Construction of the first ship is planned for fiscal year 2007.
  --$83 million for the development of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles 
        that can clear sea mines and operate without detection in 
        denied areas.
  --About $500 million for the Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing (STOVL) 
        Joint Strike Fighter that does not require large-deck aircraft 
        carriers or full-length runways to takeoff and land.
  --$812 million for 332 Interim Armored Vehicles--protected, highly 
        mobile and lethal transport for light infantry--enough for one 
        of the Army's transformational Interim Brigade Combat Teams 
        (IBCT). The fiscal year 2003-2007 FYDP funds six IBCTs at about 
        $1.5 billion each.
  --$707 million for the Army's Future Combat System--a family of 
        advanced-technology fighting vehicles that will give future 
        ground forces unmatched battlefield awareness and lethality.
  --$88 million for new Hypervelocity Missiles that are lighter and 
        smaller (4 feet long and less than 50 pounds) and will give 
        lightly armored forces the lethality that only heavy armored 
        forces have today.
    The 2003 budget requests $7.4 billion for programs to support our 
goal of projecting power over vast distances, and $53 billion over the 
five year FYDP (2003-07)--an increase of 21 percent.
4. Leveraging Information Technology
    A fourth important goal is leveraging information technology. 
Information technology was the key to linking the horse cavalry with B-
52s in my earlier example. In less than 20 minutes from the time an NCO 
on horseback entered key information into his laptop, JDAMs launched 
from a B-52 miles away were dropping on enemy positions--within just a 
few hundred meters of the NCO. Clearly, a key transformation goal is to 
leverage advances in information technology to seamlessly connect U.S. 
forces--in the air, at sea and on the ground so they can communicate 
with each other, instantaneously share information about their location 
(and the location of the enemy), and all see the same, precise, real-
time picture of the battlefield.
    The President's 2003 budget funds a number of programs designed to 
leverage information technology. These include:
  --$172 million to continue development of the Joint Tactical Radio 
        System, a program to give our services a common multi-purpose 
        radio system so they can communicate with each other by voice 
        and with data;
  --$150 million for the ``Link-16'' Tactical Data Link, a jam-
        resistant, high-capacity, secure digital communications system 
        that will link tactical commanders to shooters in the air, on 
        the ground, and at sea--providing near real-time data;
  --$29 million for Horizontal Battlefield Digitization that will help 
        give our forces a common operational picture of the 
        battlefield;
  --$61 million for the Warfighter Information Network (WIN-T), the 
        radio-electronic equivalent of the World Wide Web to provide 
        secure networking capabilities to connect everyone from the 
        boots on the ground to the commanders;
  --$77 million for the ``Land Warrior'' and soldier modernization 
        program to integrate the small arms carried by our soldiers 
        with high-tech communications, sensors and other equipment to 
        give new lethality to the forces on the ground;
  --$40 million for Deployable Joint Command and Control--a program for 
        new land- and sea-based joint command and control centers that 
        can be easily relocated as tactical situations require.
    One technology that we are investing in, which has very large 
potential implications, is laser communications, a promising, 
experimental technology that, if successful, would give wide-band 
satellites the ability to pass data to each other at speeds measured in 
gigabits per second as opposed to megabits per second--a significant 
and dramatic improvement.
    The 2003 budget requests $2.5 billion for programs to support this 
objective of leveraging information technology, and $18.6 billion over 
the five year FYDP (2003-07)--an increase of 125 percent.
5. Conducting Effective Information Operations
    As information warfare takes an increasingly significant role in 
modern war, our ability to protect our information networks and to 
attack and cripple those of our adversaries will be critical.
    Many of the programs supporting this objective are classified. But 
the President's 2003 budget funds a number of programs designed to 
provide unparalleled advantages in information warfare, such as $136.5 
million for the Automated Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance 
System, a joint ground system that provides next-generation 
intelligence tasking, processing, exploitation and reporting 
capabilities.
    The 2003 budget requests $174 million for programs to support this 
objective--$773 million over the five-year FYDP (2003-07)--an increase 
of 28 percent.
6. Strengthening Space Operations
    Space is the ultimate ``high ground.'' One of our top 
transformational goals is to harness the United States' advantages in 
space where we can see what adversaries are doing around the world and 
around the clock. As we move operations to space, we must also ensure 
the survivability of our space systems.
    The President's 2003 budget includes funds for a number of programs 
designed to provide unmatched space capabilities and defenses. These 
include:
  --$88 million for Space Control Systems that enhance U.S. ground 
        based surveillance radar capabilities and, over time, move 
        those surveillance capabilities into space;
  --$103.1 million for Directed Energy Technology to deny use of enemy 
        electronic equipment with no collateral damage, to provide 
        space control, and to pinpoint battlefield targets for 
        destruction.
    The 2003 budget requests about $200 million to strengthen space 
capabilities--$1.5 billion over the five-year FYDP (2003-07)--an 
increase of 145 percent.
    Of course, we cannot transform the entire military in one year, or 
even in a decade--nor would it be wise to try to do so. Rather, we 
intend to transform a percentage of the force, the leading edge of 
change that will, over time, lead the rest of the force into the 21st 
Century. As Secretary Rumsfeld has emphasized, ``transformation is not 
an event--it is an ongoing process.''
                       people/military personnel
    While we transform for the future, we must take care of our most 
valuable resource: the men and women who wear our nation's uniform. 
Military service by its nature asks our service members to assume 
certain risks and sacrifices. But, we should not ask those who put 
themselves in harm's way to forego competitive pay and quality housing.
    The President's 2003 budget requests $94.3 billion for military pay 
and allowances, including $1.9 billion for an across-the-board 4.1 
percent percent pay raise.
    The budget also includes $4.2 billion to improve military housing, 
putting the Department on track to eliminate most substandard housing 
by 2007--several years sooner than previously planned. It will also 
lower out-of-pocket housing costs for those living in private housing 
from 11.3 percent today to 7.5 percent in 2003--putting us on track to 
eliminate all out of pocket housing costs for the men and women in 
uniform by 2005. This represents a significant change--before 2001, 
out-of-pocket costs were 18.8 percent.
    We stand by our goal of reducing the replacement rate for DOD 
facilities from the current and unacceptable 121 years, to a rate of 67 
years (which is closer to the commercial standard). We have dedicated 
some $20 billion over the 2003-07 FYDP to this end. But most of those 
investments have been delayed until the out-years, when BRAC is finally 
implemented and we will know which facilities will be closed.
    The budget also includes $10 billion for education, training, and 
recruiting, and $22.8 billion to cover the most realistic cost 
estimates of military healthcare.
                              cost savings
    We have taken a realistic approach in looking at a number of 
programs, and have found areas where we can save some money. We have 
proposed terminating a number of programs over the next five years that 
were not in line with the new defense strategy, or were having program 
difficulties. These include the DD-21, Navy Area Missile Defense, 18 
Army Legacy programs, and the Peacekeeper Missile. We also accelerated 
retirement of a number of aging and expensive to maintain capabilities, 
such as the F-14, DD-963 destroyers, and 1,000 Vietnam-era helicopters.
    We have focused modernization efforts on programs that support 
transformation. We restructured certain programs that were not meeting 
hurdles, such as the V-22 Osprey, Comanche, and SBIRS programs. 
Regarding the V-22, the production rate has been slowed while attention 
is focused on correcting the serious technical problems identified by 
the blue ribbon panel and a rigorous flight test program is to be 
conducted to determine whether it is safe and reliable. The 
restructured programs reflect cost estimates and delivery dates that 
should be more realistic.
    We are working to generate savings and efficiency in other programs 
as well. For example, today, the B-1 bomber cannot operate effectively 
in combat environment where there is a serious anti-aircraft threat. So 
the Air Force is reducing the B-1 bomber fleet by about one-third, and 
using the savings to modernize the remaining aircraft with new 
precision weapons, self-protection systems, and reliability upgrades 
that will make the B-1 suitable for future conflicts. This should add 
some $1.5 billion of advanced combat capability to today's aging B-1 
fleet over the next five years--without requiring additional dollars 
from the taxpayers. These are the kinds of tradeoffs we are encouraging 
throughout the Department.
    We are also proceeding toward our goal of a 15 percent reduction in 
headquarters staffing, and the Senior Executive Council is finding 
additional ways to manage DOD more efficiently.
    The budget reflects over $9 billion in redirected funds from 
acquisition program changes, management improvements, and other 
initiatives--savings that help to fund transformation and other 
pressing requirements.
    Currently, to fight the war on terrorism and fulfill the many 
emergency homeland defense responsibilities, we have had to call up 
over 70,000 guard and reserves. Our long term goal, however, is to 
refocus our country's forces, tighten up on the use of military 
manpower for non-military purposes and examine critically the 
activities that the U.S. military is currently engaged in to identify 
those that are no longer needed.
    The Secretary of Defense and the Defense Department have made one 
of the highest reform priorities to put our financial house in order. 
This represents a significant undertaking: managing DOD might be 
compared to managing several Fortune 500 companies combined. We have 
launched an aggressive effort to modernize and transform our financial 
and non-financial management systems--to include substantial 
standardization, robust controls, clear identification of costs, and 
reliable information for decision makers. Especially key is the 
creation of an architecture that will integrate the more than 674 
different financial and non-financial systems that we have identified.
    Congress's decision to put off base closure for two more years 
means that the Department will have to continue supporting between 20-
25 percent more infrastructure than needed to support the force. The 
decision to hold up the process another two years will be a costly one 
for taxpayers. Additionally, because of the post-September 11th force 
protection requirements, DOD is forced to protect 25 percent more bases 
than we need.
    The two-year delay in base closure should not be taken as an 
opportunity to try to ``BRAC-proof'' certain bases and facilities. 
Earmarks directing infrastructure spending on facilities that the 
taxpayers of America don't need and that eventually could be closed 
would be compounding the waste that the delay in BRAC is already 
causing.
                               tradeoffs
    Throughout this budget process, we were required to make some tough 
tradeoffs.
  --We were not able to meet our objective of lowering average age of 
        tactical aircraft. However, we are investing in unmanned 
        aircraft, and in the F-22 and JSF, which require significant 
        upfront investments, but will not come on line for several 
        years.
  --While the budget proposes faster growth in Science and Technology 
        (S&T), we were not able to meet our goal of 3 percent of the 
        budget.
  --And we have not been able to fund shipbuilding at replacement rates 
        in 2003--which means we remain on a downward course that, if 
        not unchecked, could reduce the size of the Navy to a clearly 
        unacceptable level in the decades ahead. To sustain the Navy at 
        acceptable levels, the United States needs to build eight or 
        nine ships annually. The proposed Future Years Defense Program 
        budgets for procurement of 5 ships in fiscal year 2004, 7 ships 
        in 2005, 7 ships in 2006 and 10 ships in 2007.
                               conclusion
    A budget of $379 billion represents a great deal of money. But, it 
is misleading to compare this budget to budgets of the Cold War or to 
the defense budgets of other countries. We do not face other countries' 
budgets on the battlefield; we fight their forces. The budget of the 
Taliban would have been a small fraction of that of the United States. 
Yet, it has been unquestionably important that we have had the 
capability to deploy forces rapidly and effectively to an unexpected 
theater of operations. Our success thus far in meeting this challenge 
only confirms that ours is the world's best military force. We need the 
world's best military force. We can't afford to have less than that.
    The New York City comptroller's office estimated the local economic 
cost of the September 11th attacks on New York City alone will add up 
to about $100 billion over the next three years. Estimates of the cost 
to the national economy range from about $170 billion last year--and 
estimates range as high as almost $250 billion a year in lost 
productivity, sales, jobs, airline revenue, and countless other areas. 
The cost in human lives, and the pain and suffering of so many 
thousands of Americans who lost loved ones that day, is incalculable.
    The President's budget address our country's need to fight the war 
on terror, to support our men and women in uniform and modernize the 
forces we have, and to prepare for the challenges of the 21st Century. 
This Committee is an important safeguard of the long-term interests of 
our great nation, and well understands that there is nothing more 
important than preserving peace and security. We look forward to 
working with this Committee to ensure that peace and security is what 
we can leave to generations to come.

                     STRAINS ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

    Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Because 
of the constraints of time, may I request that the questioning 
period be limited to 10 minutes per member.
    Six days ago, Senator Stevens and I had the privilege of 
visiting our troops in Uzbekistan and Pakistan and Afghanistan. 
As the vice chairman pointed out, we were not just impressed 
but amazed at the high level of morale. However, the personnel 
tempo which is now being driven by the war on terrorism and the 
pace of deployments, I believe is putting a significant strain 
on our personnel and their families.
    So my question is, are our current end strength levels 
adequate to meet the U.S. military commitments at home and 
around the world? And secondly, have the events of 9/11 
impacted the Department's ability to recruit and retain 
military personnel?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Let me answer the second part of the 
question first and the answer is, we seem to be doing very well 
on retention and recruitment. The willingness of Americans to 
come forward and serve their country and the willingness of 
reservists to serve on active duty is remarkable and heart 
warming.
    You are, I think, correct in identifying the fact that we 
are pushing our forces hard. In addition to what you have 
mentioned we have, and I would like to get the exact number for 
the record, but well over 80,000 people now called to active 
duty, many of them on homeland security missions. Indeed, 
during the time of the Olympics in Utah, we had more people on 
active duty in the State of Utah than we had on active duty in 
Afghanistan.
    We can't keep calling people back to reserve duty and 
expect them to stay in the reserves, that isn't quite what they 
had in mind when they joined. So we are looking very hard at 
what our long-term personnel requirements will be. But 
Secretary Rumsfeld has been pressing people to not simply say 
we need extra people to do all these extra tasks, but also to 
identify where perhaps there are things that we don't need to 
do, so we can reduce that strain not by adding people but by 
reducing some unnecessary missions.
    As you may know, we had been trying long before September 
11 to get our 2,000 or so people out of the Sinai where in our 
view at least, the military mission is no longer needed. For 
reasons I cannot understand, we are told that politically it's 
not a very good time. That's the kind of example of what we run 
into when we try to find ways to reduce those burdens. But we 
would like to try to manage, if we can, without increasing end 
strength, but we can't do that on the backs of the men and 
women in uniform, or even worse, the backs of their families.
    As you know, Mr. Chairman, nothing will send somebody out 
of the service faster than being sent away on a deployment or 
an unaccompanied tour, leaving his family at home for 
intolerable periods of time.
    [The information follows:]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            ARNG     USAR     ANG     USAFR     USNR     MCR     USCGR    TOTAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOBLE EAGLE.............................   10,826    6,103   15,966    6,082    7,859    4,047    1,566   52,449
ENDURING FREEDOM........................    7,232    7,680    7,562    8,189      636      117  .......   31,416
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL.............................   18,058   13,783   23,528   14,271    8,495    4,164    1,566   83,865
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Numbers are as of June 6, 2002.

Summary

National Guard (Air and Army):
    Homeland Security (Noble Eagle)...............................26,792
    Enduring Freedom..............................................14,794
Reserves (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, & Coast Guard):
    Homeland Security (Noble Eagle)...............................25,657
    Enduring Freedom..............................................16,622

    Senator Inouye. It is true that the retention and 
recruiting in general will be acceptable, but I am certain you 
have some shortfalls in certain areas like pilots and nurses. 
Have you provided any incentives to recruit or retain men and 
women in those categories?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Let me try to get a more detailed answer for 
the record. I have been given the impression that we're doing 
quite well on the recruiting side and that we haven't needed 
extra incentives. Where we are not doing so well is, we had to 
put stop loss orders in for a lot of military specialties. I 
don't think it's a recruiting problem, I think it's that we 
can't train up the number of people you need fast enough to 
meet the needs, and that is a real issue and one we have to 
address, because keeping people in the service when they have 
made other plans is again, not the way we want to treat our 
people if we can avoid it.
    [The information follows:]

    The Critical Skills Accession Bonus (CSAB), enacted into law in 
2002, authorizes the Secretary concerned to pay up to $60,000 in lump 
sum or installments, to new officers who accept a commission and serve 
on active duty in a designated critical skill for a specified period of 
time. Services are drafting proposals to use this authority in 2003 to 
enhance their nurse accessions.
    The Department accesses sufficient numbers of pilots; our challenge 
is retaining them. We continue to monitor our pilot shortage and offer 
the Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP). Continued utilization of the 
enhanced aviation continuation pay program resulted in a substantial 
increase in additional years of committed service from pilots and 
aviators throughout the Department enabling the Services to man 
aircraft cockpits. Continued use of the ACP will enhance our ability to 
retain these critical assets.
    The Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB), enacted in 2001, 
incentivizes the retention of officers with selected critical skills. 
The Air Force 2003 program includes Developmental Engineers, 
Scientific/Research Specialists, Acquisition Program Managers, 
Communication/Information Systems Officers and Civil Engineers; the 
Navy proposal offers the CSRB to Surface Warfare and Submarine Support 
Officers. No Service has proposed using this authority to retain 
nurses, but the health communities are evaluating the use of this 
authority to target their critical health profession skills.
    Enlisted retention programs rely primarily on the Selected 
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). The SRB is intended to encourage the 
reenlistment of sufficient numbers of qualified enlisted personnel in 
critical military specialties with high training costs or demonstrated 
retention shortfalls. Services periodically review the skills eligible 
for the SRB against the criteria and adjust their programs accordingly.

                  THE $10 BILLION CONTINGENCY REQUEST

    Senator Inouye. And now the $10 billion question. How do 
you respond to the critics of this request?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. First of all, it's absurd to call it as some 
do, a slush fund. The purpose of this request is very clear. It 
is to continue the kind of operations we are conducting today, 
and basically at the level we are at today. One of your 
colleagues earlier referred to this as a new and unique 
request. It isn't actually new or unique. It is pretty much 
exactly part of what we came to the Congress for last fall; in 
fact, it is less. We came to you with a request for a $10 
billion fund that could be used for any purposes in the war on 
terror and another $10 billion that could be used with a 15-day 
notification, and another $20 billion that might be required. 
You might think of this as the front end of the $20 billion 
request we had, and I think it's the only prudent way where we 
expect to meet the need to continue to conduct operations, at 
least something like this level.
    For those who were concerned that this was some kind of 
writing a blank check to some unlimited expansion of the war, 
this has been shown that this isn't going to fund anything much 
more than roughly the level of activity we are at for 
approximately 5 months into fiscal year 2003. We don't know 
what we're going to need in fiscal year 2003. I suppose it's 
possible that we will be able miraculously to say we don't need 
to conduct military operations at that level. It's equally 
possible and maybe more likely that we will find that in many 
ways our expenses and burdens are rising.
    It seems to me the only prudent thing to do, especially 
when thinking about allocating resources for the next fiscal 
year, is to assume that at least a $10 billion amount is 
necessary and we ought to have that available going into the 
year and not have to come with a supplemental on October 1, 
which is where we would be if this money were not appropriated.
    Senator Inouye. Since I am from the Pacific, I am certain 
you understand my special concern for the Navy, and I have been 
concerned about the ship building program because it continues 
to be plagued with cost overruns and delays. In the fiscal year 
2003 budget request, there is $645 million to complete prior-
year ship building programs. This is on top of the $729 million 
provided for the same purpose. What is your plan to address 
these issues and getting the ship building program back on 
track?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I am going to ask Dr. Zakheim to add some 
more detail here, but you are correct in identifying the fact 
that we have some problems in how ship building is going, and 
while we would like to see our ship building at a higher level 
in this budget, the leadership of the Navy after a lot of 
careful thought decided it was a much higher priority to get 
the readiness accounts up to improve the operation, the care of 
the present force. And they do have the advantage that, as I 
mentioned earlier, our current fleet is relatively new, I think 
the average age is about 16 years. And while we're not building 
at replacement rates, we don't have to be quite at replacement 
rates yet. Even if we were to put more money into ship building 
this year, we're not so sure we would be putting it into the 
right programs, partly because of some of the problems that you 
have identified.
    Dov, do you want to add to that?
    Dr. Zakheim. Only to say that the way the Navy approached 
its overall budget was to fully fund readiness, and in the past 
as you know, Mr. Chairman, what has often been the case is that 
readiness programs were underfunded and funds migrated from 
procurement accounts to the readiness accounts, so that the 
ships that are in the budget, and one could I think make a 
reasonable argument that the two ballistic missile carrying 
submarines (SSBNs) count as part of ship building, but those 
five plus two are likely to be protected in a way that previous 
ship building budgets have not.
    We went back to restricted funding, the priority of funding 
5-year contracts, and we feel reasonably certain about this 
budget and about the rest of the 5-year ship building program, 
where we will have up to 10 or so ships by 2007.

                     OFFICE OF STRATEGIC INFLUENCE

    Senator Inouye. Thank you. Just for the record, the Office 
of Strategic Influence is now out of business?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. That's correct. It was never in the business 
of producing disinformation or misleading people, I would like 
to make that clear. That is not our business and I think quite 
fundamentally, we understand as I think the whole country and 
the rest of the government understands that truth is on our 
side in this war and truth is one of the more important 
aspects, and we would not want to do things in any way to 
diminish our goal to deliver the truth by allowing people to 
think that we are doing something else.

              FISCAL YEAR 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

    Senator Inouye. We have been told that you may have a 
supplemental request submitted by the end of April, but it does 
not appear to be that that will be done. What is the status 
now?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I'm very hesitant to predict how long it 
takes things sometimes to get out of the executive branch. 
There is an urgency to get a supplemental request up here 
because we are starting fairly soon to run out of the 
supplemental appropriation that you passed last fall, and it 
would be unfortunate if we end up back in the situation that we 
have been in so often before where we are dipping into a future 
account in order to cover expenses and the expectation that we 
will get reimbursed from a supplemental. We are trying to work 
it as fast as we can and our colleagues at the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) are working hard with us, and we 
will just try to get it here as quickly as possible.
    Senator Inouye. I thank you. My time is up. Senator 
Stevens.

                              C-17 FUNDING

    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Secretary Wolfowitz, 
we have followed the C-17 for years. At one time all three of 
the other defense committees or subcommittees had opposed the 
C-17 and it still proceeded. We still have an overwhelming 
support for that system. As a matter of fact, the availability 
of that aircraft is a limiting factor on our ability to 
redeploy our forces today.
    This budget request reduces the procurement rate by 20 
percent to 12 aircraft in 2003, but it does not decrease the 
overall buy. And so my question to you is one, why did you do 
this? And two, what will be the additional cost in the 
procurement if we follow your request?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. My understanding is that first of all, I 
agree with you strongly about the importance of the C-17 and 
applaud you and others who made sure this program survived, and 
we have the benefit of it today. My understanding is that the 
12 aircraft budgeted for in 2003 will be combined with the 
previous multiyear purchase to maintain the economical 
production rate of the plant during fiscal year 2004, where the 
rate is 15, and that our follow-on multiyear procurement will 
sustain the C-17 production profile at that rate through fiscal 
year 2007. So that, I am told that this profile results in the 
same total costs and the same delivery schedule but to revert 
to a traditional multiyear at this point would require an 
additional $650 million in 2003 appropriations without 
accelerating the delivery schedule. So I think, as I understand 
it, it's a matter of trying to match up the year by year 
funding with the actual production capability but not to add 
anything to the cost of production.
    Senator Stevens. I would request that you give us the 
detail for the record. Last year we were told the most 
efficient and cost effective rate of production was 15 a year, 
and we authorized that and we funded it at that level. Now it's 
going down to 12 and you're telling us that somehow or another, 
that that 12 next year will continue the rate of 15 this year. 
I have serious questions about that and I hope you will give us 
some details of that analysis for the record.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I would like to see them myself, Senator, 
and will get them to you.
    [The information follows:]

    The C-17 Multiyear Procurement (MYP) is structured so that Boeing 
maintains their most efficient and cost effective rate of production at 
15 aircraft a year. While the budget indicates that only 12 aircraft 
are being procured in fiscal year 2003, the use of advance procurement 
funding for long-lead components, parts, and materials, and some 
fabrication and assembly, allows the contractor to maintain the optimum 
production rate and delivery of 15 aircraft per year.

             MISSILE DEFENSE TEST FACILITY AND X-BAND RADAR

    Senator Stevens. Secondly, I understand that we are going 
forward now with what really is a test facility for a national 
missile defense system. Can you tell me when you believe the 
test facility will be operational?
    And secondly, the X-band radar proposed out of that system 
for Shemya has been delayed, and I am told that there is some 
concept of placing those radars on ships at sea. It was sure my 
understanding, and the committee's understanding, that the X-
band radar, Shemya would be part of the worldwide deployment of 
X-band radars. I have never heard of putting X-band radars on 
ships at sea and I would like to know, is that correct, is that 
going to be the functional addition to the national missile 
defense system X-band radar for the Pacific?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Fort Greeley, Senator, we started site 
preparation in the August, October time frame, and cleared land 
and started grading some roads. The Ground Base Missile Defense 
(GMD) validation of operation and concept environmental 
assessment for Greeley has been performed and is ready for 
public comment, and upon completion of that 30-day public 
comment period in April, we will be awarding contracts, the 
Army Corps of Engineers will be awarding contracts for starting 
actual test bed construction. That would include roads, a 
readiness control building, a missile assembly building, 
mechanical/electrical building, electrical substation, 
interceptor storage building, and several other smaller 
buildings.
    In late June we will reach the expiration period of our 6-
month Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty withdrawal 
notification and at that point we would begin excavation and 
construction of six missile silos. All of those facilities 
would be completed and in operation as part of the ground-based 
missile defense field with five prototype interceptors, should 
be installed and checked out and ready by September of 2004. 
That would give us a capability we've never had before for 
validating construction techniques, validating the operational 
concept and putting it in a representative Arctic environment.
    On the X-band radar, my understanding is that the Missile 
Defense Agency is still looking at the best location deployment 
systems for X-band radars, including very definitely the 
possibility of Shemya. Indeed, I think they feel that Shemya is 
an operational requirement for an effective system. But they 
are also looking at ships and other locations with respect to a 
test bed, not an operational system.

                     MISSILE DEFENSE SUPPORT GROUP

    Senator Stevens. Thank you for that. Could you tell me, 
what is the Missile Defense Study Group? We have read about it 
in the press and I have not been informed and I do not think 
any of us have been. What is that? We have Missile Defense 
Agency and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) 
under General Ron Kadish, and we have the statement of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition that there is now a 
new group, the Missile Defense Support Group. Can you tell us 
what that is?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It's part of the oversight mechanism that 
was put in place when we restructured the BMDO office into the 
Missile Defense Agency. We tried to give General Kadish and his 
people more flexibility to pursue things that work and stop 
doing things that don't work, but we wanted some mechanism that 
would insure a reasonable level of oversight in reviewing those 
decisions. The Missile Defense Support Group is the group that 
performs that function as an adjunct of the Senior Executive 
Council, which consists of the three service secretaries and 
under secretaries. So, I would describe it as a management tool 
that is meant to give General Kadish a great deal of 
flexibility but keep a reasonable level of oversight at the 
same time.
    Senator Stevens. Will that be then that the Missile Defense 
Agency will be the organization that will comply with the 
Federal acquisition procedures, contract awards, other 
functions and that this Missile Defense Study Group is an 
oversight policy group? We worry about this second level here 
now that might second-guess the decisions of the Agency.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Well, the level that would have any 
authority to overrule the decisions of the Agency would be the 
level of the service secretaries and the under secretary for 
acquisition and myself. In the past arrangement, we could have 
those decisions second guessed by the Defense Acquisition 
Board, which is a whole other large bureaucracy. I think we 
have actually given him more flexibility, but there has to be 
some degree of oversight. But he is the accountable official 
and my understanding is, and if it's wrong, I'll get back to 
you for the record, but my understanding is that it is the head 
of the Missile Defense Agency who has the responsibility for 
complying with acquisition regulations.
    Senator Stevens. I see our distinguished chairman has 
arrived and we want to give him the opportunity to ask his 
questions.

                            DOD CONSULTANTS

    We tried to implement a program for reduction of our 
consultants in the Department of Defense. As a matter of fact, 
we made a reduction in the budget itself to reflect that, 
coming from this subcommittee. I would like you to document how 
many consultants are currently employed by and how much is 
actually spent for noncareer workers in that capacity by the 
Department. Will you please provide for the record a statement 
of how many consultants and contract workers the Department 
employs now, how many they plan to employ in 2003, and how much 
will the Department spend for such services in 2002 and 2003?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. We will do that, Senator.
    [The information follows:]

    The Department of Defense has no central repository of data on the 
number of consultants and contract workers employed by the Department, 
how many are planned to be employed in 2003, nor how much the 
Department will spend for such services in 2002 and 2003.

    Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, and along with 
Senator Stevens, I want to recognize the chairman of the 
committee, Chairman Byrd.

                        FUNDING WAR ON TERRORISM

    Senator Byrd. Thank you. I have had the pleasure and the 
privilege of hearing Mr. Wolfowitz recently and I am glad to 
have this opportunity to ask just a few questions again, and I 
thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you Mr. Ranking Chairman, 
for inviting me.
    Doctor, instead of concentrating on completing our 
operations in Afghanistan, the Pentagon seems to be looking for 
opportunities to stay longer and to extend itself further into 
the region. This concerns me. I think that we seem to be good 
at developing entrance strategies, not so good in developing 
exit strategies. I see that the Pentagon is basing a $30 
billion projected cost of the war on a series of assumptions 
regarding operations. According to the information I have 
received from your office you have calculated that America's 
war on terrorism will cost a total of $30 billion in fiscal 
year 2002. Congress has already provided $17.4 billion, which 
means that the Defense Department will need a $12.6 billion 
supplemental just to cover the cost of the war for 1 year. Does 
the Pentagon have a list of goals that it expects to 
accomplish, Dr. Wolfowitz, with the $30 billion?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The $30 billion is basically a projection 
and I would emphasize, at every stage of this campaign things 
change, they change rapidly. Just as we had no idea on 
September 10 that we would be engaged in a conflict halfway 
around the world in Afghanistan, we also had no idea on October 
15th that we would be deploying forces on the ground in 
Afghanistan as quickly as we did, we had no idea the Taliban 
would collapse as quickly as it did, we had no idea that we 
would be putting people on the ground to pursue al Qaeda 
terrorists in caves as quickly as we did. Everything here has 
gone in ways that have been unpredictable.
    I say that by emphasizing that whatever I'm going to say 
about where we will be in June or in August or in September is 
a prediction of the unpredictable. What we have basically done 
is to say it's a reasonable assumption that we will continue to 
operate at roughly the level we're at today. And I would 
emphasize, the level we're at today, particularly for a major 
conflict of this kind, is very very low. We only have about 
5,000 people on the ground in Afghanistan; that's one one-
hundreth, 1 percent of what we deployed in the total coalition 
force in the Persian Gulf 10 years ago.
    They are engaged in primarily, our major objective is to 
continue to pursue al Qaeda terrorists, to capture them or kill 
them, to obtain information and intelligence about what they 
were doing there and what their ties are to people elsewhere. 
Not so long ago, we picked up a videotape in Kabul, I believe 
it was, or somewhere in Afghanistan, that led to the arrest of 
terrorists in Singapore who were planning to attack American 
Navy ships.
    This is a global network and by what we have been able to 
do in Afghanistan, I think we have significantly disrupted that 
network and given ourselves more intelligence to go after. At 
the same time, we do not want to see Afghanistan become again 
in 2 or 3 or 5 years, a haven for the same group of terrorists 
or another group of terrorists, and that requires some 
attention to maintaining the security conditions of the country 
after we're finished.
    But I would assure you, Senator Byrd, we have no desire to 
stay one day longer than we have to, or use one soldier, 
sailor, airman or Marine more than we have to. Our basic 
principle of long-term security in Afghanistan is to try to 
train and equip the Afghans to do as much of the job for 
themselves as possible, I think that is the strategy and that's 
the basis on which we have made what I admit, again, is a guess 
as to what our costs will be.

                    AFFORDABILITY OF DEFENSE REQUEST

    Senator Byrd. Well, Dr. Wolfowitz, General Franks is a good 
commander, he takes his orders, as you do, from the President. 
What I see here appears to be an expanding agenda. I read all 
of these accounts about creating an army in Afghanistan. We 
went there to hunt down the terrorists. We don't know where 
Osama bin Laden is, whether he is alive or dead, or where 
Mullah Omar is hiding. We have bombed the caves of Afghanistan 
back into the dark ages, which lasted 1,000 years, and we've 
killed Afghans who are not our enemies. We killed 16 just a few 
days ago because we dropped, apparently didn't have the correct 
intelligence. There have been a lot of bodies I'm sure brought 
out of those caves. So we don't have Osama bin Laden. And if we 
expect to kill every terrorist in the world, that's going to 
keep us going beyond doomsday. How long can we afford this? How 
much have we spent in Afghanistan already to date?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I believe the total that we've spent on 
deployments, and I think that includes money that we spent for 
Operation Noble Eagle, which is the air defense of the United 
States, is $10.3 billion through the end of January. That 
includes a number of immediate security measures that were 
taken for homeland security force protection after September 
11, which totals $3.9 billion.
    Senator Byrd. So we have spent how much in Afghanistan?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Dov, do you have it broken down between 
Afghanistan and Noble Eagle? What I have is a $7.4 billion 
figure which, I'm sorry, Senator, I don't have the breakdown on 
it, I will try to get it for you. The $7.4 billion figure 
covers our operation in Afghanistan and our air defense 
requirements in the United States, those two together. I would 
guess that roughly $6 billion of that total is Afghanistan.
    Senator Byrd. And the President is asking for $379 billion 
for defense for fiscal year 2003, which is more than $1 billion 
a day. How long can we stand this kind of pressure upon our 
Treasury? And the President has committed our country to build 
an Afghan national army, according to what I read in the press, 
and to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild that 
country, and there is no end in sight, no end in sight to our 
mission in Afghanistan.
    Look at the Philippines. We are sending 660 troops there to 
fight a rebel group there. Already, 10 soldiers on that mission 
have lost their lives in a helicopter accident. Look at 
Colombia. I have yet to see any effect of the $1 billion in 
U.S. aid that has been sent to the jungle down there. The drugs 
that were supposed to be eradicated are still finding their way 
onto our streets. But as the Colombian government heats up its 
war against the rebel drug dealers, the President is 
considering sending more aid, perhaps more U.S. troops to that 
country. And then there is Iraq. And so on and so on.

                    U.S. COMMITMENTS IN AFGHANISTAN

    Mr. Chairman, you have been very liberal with my time. Let 
me ask just one final question. I have not heard any estimates 
of how much it will cost to train and equip an Afghan national 
army that the President has said, the United States will assist 
in its creation, but Congress has control of the purse string, 
if we pay attention to Section 7 of Article 1 of the United 
States Constitution. We have to begin asking some questions. No 
blank checks to be written. Do we know how much it will cost, 
Dr. Wolfowitz, to follow through on the administration's 
promise or have we committed in essence to giving Afghanistan a 
blank check? Where are we, what is it going to cost, what is 
the end game here? When will we know that we have achieved 
victory and that we need to get out of Afghanistan?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Senator, we are actually still in the 
process of trying to assess what would be the right kind of 
army for Afghanistan and what it would cost. And frankly, the 
push in our assessments is to get people's expectations down to 
be more realistic and not to try to create some giant force 
that they don't actually need. And we strongly agree with the 
thrust of your comments that we don't want to have a long-term 
continuing American presence in that country if we can help it. 
That is I think the main reason why we want to see the Afghans 
themselves have something to do with the security function.
    The other side of the coin, and I'm pretty sure you would 
agree with this, because I know how stalwart you have been in 
support of our defense programs over many years and you know 
that, as I know, that we enjoy a much saver world today because 
we persevered through the Cold War. I think we will enjoy a 
much safer world 4 or 5 or 10 years from now, maybe sooner, but 
I don't think much sooner than that, by persevering in this war 
on terrorism.
    But you are absolutely right, that we have to be careful 
about overcommitting ourselves, we've got to be very careful 
about not taking on other peoples jobs for them, and looking 
for ways to get out of places as well as ways to get in. So 
it's balancing those two things at the same time, but I can't 
tell you when we will have won. Unfortunately, that's something 
we will sort of know only when it's, the terrorists have 
stopped. We do know that they are still out there in large 
numbers, and it's not only in Afghanistan, but we do know that 
what we are able to accomplish in Afghanistan even as we speak 
is helping us to prevent terrorist acts here in the United 
States.
    Senator Byrd. Thank you, Doctor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
and I thank my colleagues for your patience.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Hollings.
    Senator Hollings. Back to the original theme, Secretary 
Wolfowitz. Every response up here is to the needs of the 
reelection campaign and not the needs of the country, and if 
there is any division, then we just move on. That old political 
axiom, when in doubt, do nothing. That comment is made as a 
result of your comment on the Sinai. I find that you and I are 
going down the same side of the street together. We have got 13 
peacekeeping; now we're going to add 2 more in the Philippines 
and in Georgia. Now we are going into the old Soviet Union, and 
I thought we would never get in there, but you got us in there 
according to my morning paper.
    I can get reelected on that down in South Carolina, we are 
confronting Communism once again. But the truth of the matter 
is that you have to go into these places to eliminate the 
terrorist element. I am not worried so much about Afghanistan 
because I know you are sincere about it, but there can be no 
sincerity to the Balkans. Ten years ago we went there for 1 
year, now it's 10 years later. In other words, we are in a 
sacrificial mode around here which doesn't exist, but tell the 
Europeans they are just going to have to take over or let them 
run the operation. We have to sit here and argue with the 
council of foreign relations, are they going to run the 
government? Why not cut back with the Balkans? Kosovo, they are 
just hunkered down by themselves there, all those troops, why 
not cut back the Kosovo operation?

                        U.S. TROOPS IN THE SINAI

    It seems to me that you agree with Secretary Rumsfeld on 
the Sinai, and the people around in that area are not very 
friendly to us, they are not very understanding and 
cooperative, they do not want us there, so why do we not get 
out of the Sinai?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Well, I agree with Secretary Rumsfeld. 
Unfortunately, the people there do want us there. That's what 
we're grappling with.
    Senator Hollings. You know that from the 900 that we got--
--
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Oh, our people don't want to be there.
    Senator Hollings. No. The 900 people who are there are 
telling you the people around them do not want us there, they 
are not very friendly about our deployment there at all. Go 
over and talk to them.
    With respect, since my time is limited, with respect to the 
C-17, it was Secretary Perry that we put him in the cockpit up 
in Charleston, someone on this committee said, and I agree with 
Senator Stevens, let us get that procurement up at least to the 
15 or more. I visited with him and I agree with his comments 
about the Reserves, they are going around the clock. In 
Charleston you have the 437th regulars, a C-17 outfit, and you 
have the 315th reserves, by General Black, and they are going 
around and around the world. I think about 78 percent of 
everything going into Afghanistan is on a C-17.
    And yes their morale is high, but how are they going to 
keep it up in the Reserves? Like the frustration noted in the 
distinguished gentleman's question, when are we going to have 
victory, they want to know, when are we going to get some 
relief? So you need more regular crews and more planes in the 
C-17 force.
    I am for the high tech, for the new defense as Secretary 
Rumsfeld testified to last year, and reiterated by the 
Commander in Chief. I went down with him 1 month ago to The 
Citadel when he announced the end of the ABM Treaty and he says 
yes, we are going to take the savings from cutting legacy 
systems and put them into this new highly technological defense 
force, and balance off those costs. And we now are asking for 
three new strike fighters. Yes, let us go with the F-22 and 
maybe even limit the first buy of F-18s. Can we economize there 
and be realistic? I'm trying to pare down this additional $50 
billion that was not needed last September and is all of a 
sudden needed when we have not even spent the additional $20 
billion we added in the supplemental. Could we do that and not 
hurt defense?

    SPENDING OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND BRING DOWN OVERSEAS 
                              DEPLOYMENTS

    Dr. Wolfowitz. First of all, to say that we haven't spent 
the supplemental, we are spending it at a great rate.
    Senator Hollings. You have spent $20 billion already?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Not yet.
    Senator Hollings. That is not what our budget figures show.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. We have spent $10.3 billion already
    Senator Hollings. About half of it.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It's actually, the amount we got totaled, I 
believe it was $17.3 billion and as of the end of January we 
had spent $10.2 billion of that. We are spending at a rate that 
will need more money by late spring, and as I said also, there 
are some costs like healthcare bills and things like that that 
you simply have to pay.
    On the question of these deployments, which we are trying 
to bring down, we have had some success, particularly in the 
Balkans. In Bosnia we had nearly 4,500 troops there in January 
of last year. As of last month, we have gotten that down to 
3,160, so that's more than 1,000 troops down in that area. And 
we are trying to take advantage of the fact that our allies 
have said they want to help. They are helping by the way, 
substantially in Afghanistan today.
    Those numbers change, but we have roughly in Afghanistan 
today roughly 5,000 Americans and I believe, and I will get 
exact numbers for the record, our allies have something in the 
neighborhood of 6,000 troops, they have more than we do by 
roughly 1,000, and the combination of the peacekeeping force in 
Kabul and people on the ground, as well as including 
Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, British Special Forces. So 
we're getting a lot of help from people, but this is a 
difficult and strenuous operation, and I think indeed what is 
remarkable is that we are able to do it without an enormous 
increase in our defense budget, the type we were talking for 
World War II or the Korean War, or even for Vietnam. We are 
looking for every place that we can save some money.
    [The information follows:]

U.S. personnel in Afghanistan (as of June 2, 2002)................ 7,259
Allied personnel in Afghanistan (as of June 2, 2002).............. 4,760

                        CUTTING UNNEEDED SYSTEMS

    Dr. Wolfowitz. And we raised the question of the three new 
fighters. The problem is they don't come in at the right times. 
If we had joint strike fighters available today, we could do 
without the F-18, but absent the joint strike fighter, you have 
to do something or our Navy aircraft are just going to get 
terribly old. They are already too old already, and that leads 
to maintenance problems or accidents and things of that kind.
    Senator Hollings. The Crusader, do you think we need that?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I think we need some of it, a lot fewer than 
the Army had planned on. We have cut that program by almost 
two-thirds, and they have done a lot to cut the size and weight 
of the system. But I'm not one of those people who think I can 
bet the farm on not needing artillery 10 years from now, and I 
think it's the best artillery system available.
    Senator Hollings. The V-22 has killed more men than the 
enemy.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. We know that it is a troubled program. We 
had a very senior level group look at it. They believe that 
those problems can be worked out. We will know sometime over 
the course of the next year whether that optimism is justified 
or not. If it's not, we are going to have to look at it again.
    Senator Hollings. It is our design, Mr. Secretary, as you 
and I know, we clear an area with air power, not like on the 
Normandy beaches, and the Blackhawk helicopter flies our troops 
where we want after we flatten the area with our air assets. It 
seems to me that the V-22 is a luxury that's not needed.

                        NEED FOR NEW SUBMARINES

    With respect to the new Virginia class submarines, I agree 
on the requisition for the regular force with respect to 
Tomahawks and carrying on Seal cruise, but do we need another 
new one with the subs?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I think we do, Senator, and we may at some 
point figure out more fundamental changes in how to use our 
submarine force and then maybe we will look at different 
designs. But I do think that if you look at 10 years from now, 
look at what an adversary can do with out technology against 
ships on the surface of the sea, you can only conclude that we 
are going to need more subsurface capability, not less. And 
that means also that we have to sustain the remarkable 
industrial base that builds those incredible ships.
    So that's the context in which I think one has to look at 
the Virginia class, not as a Cold War function we don't need 
anymore, but part of that subsurface force for the future.
    Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Shelby.

         CAPABILITIES GAP BETWEEN ALLIES AND THE UNITED STATES

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I 
am glad you are with us today. Last June I asked General Ryan 
about what he called the growing asymmetry of technology 
between the United States and our European allies. Also last 
year, Lord George Robertson said, ``We have a glaring trans-
Atlantic capabilities gap and an interoperability problem 
between the allies.''
    The Bush administration has consistently pushed, and I have 
supported them, for the modernization of our military.
    Even attributing much of what is being said by our allies 
to political posturing and rhetoric, I'm increasingly concerned 
about the capabilities gap and how this would translate to the 
battlefield.
    One, in terms of concrete military capabilities, how big is 
the current capability gap between us and our North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO) allies?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It's very large.
    Senator Shelby. Since our allies' current military budgets 
do nothing that I know of to narrow this gap and presumably 
will restrict their ability to join the fight in the future, I 
would submit that the prospect of having to go it alone puts 
even greater pressure on us to provide more funding if we hope 
to be able to execute future operations and defeat future 
threats. Would you agree?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. If the implication is that we have to spend 
more because our allies are spending less, I'm not sure I would 
agree with that. I would like to see them spending more.
    Senator Shelby. We all would.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It's also, in fairness, I agree with the 
thrust of what you're saying and I agree with Lord Robertson's 
criticism of the inadequate defense spending levels of our 
allies. At the same time, I really do want to emphasize 
particularly for those British and French and Canadian, 
Australian troops that are risking their lives on the ground in 
Afghanistan with us today, and in fact the most recent casualty 
we had was an Australian. We enormously appreciate the effort 
they are making. I think it would be much better for them and 
for us if they were investing more in their future forces as we 
are doing.
    Senator Shelby. They might be willing in the future but 
they might not be capable.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. There is that distinct danger. And even 
today they are very very dependent on our lift and our other 
support capabilities to get them to the battlefield. I believe 
it was Senator Hollings who was pointing out that now, lift is 
one of the most constrained resources.
    Senator Shelby. I know, Mr. Secretary, that the gap 
concerns Lord Robertson pointed out in the conference, it has 
to concern them in the future and their ability to project 
force and to be a player around the world, doesn't it?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I think so. And you know, I do think you 
have heard some of the political posturing that's going on over 
there during an election year.
    Senator Shelby. It is an election year over there.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I guess so. It always seems that there is an 
election somewhere every month. It is a fact that we were 
attacked on September 11th and they weren't, but I would hope 
for a greater understanding on their part that they could be 
next, that we were attacked by hijackers who didn't just come 
from the Middle East, some of them came from Europe, the worst 
of them came from Hamburg, as a matter of fact. And I think we 
really are in this thing together and on the whole we have 
been. The voices that get the most attention are the noisiest 
ones. That's what I keep coming back to, what we're seeing on 
the ground in Afghanistan, it's a different picture and it's 
not one you hear about enough in my opinion.

                             TRANSFORMATION

    Senator Shelby. To another area, transformation. Almost all 
the talk about transformation revolves around technology 
solutions to future tactics with the big issue of course being 
funding or money. Each service is working to transform its 
fighting forces. This budget includes $21 billion for 
transformation programs, and over the next 5 years, $136 
billion is projected to go to fund transformation efforts.
    Debate has heated up, Mr. Secretary, as you well know, over 
the need to buy more tactical aircraft, ships, ammunition, and 
to recapitalize more systems in an effort to keep our forces 
ready while we build this transformation bridge to the future. 
I don't hear much about fundamental force structure 
transformation these days.
    When I think about the money you are asking us to spend, I 
think about an article which appeared in the San Diego Union 
Tribune on January 30 of this year. In it, a retired rear 
admiral discussed fundamental transformation ideas and the need 
to take steps to eliminate interservice duplication. The 
example used was to combine the medical, logistical and 
intelligence groups currently serving each military branch. In 
the context of the budget hearing, I think this article asks an 
important question, and I would like to know your answers. Mr. 
Secretary, if you were building a new military from scratch, 
and I know we are not, today, would it be structured like our 
military is currently structured? How do we get to where we 
want to go, I guess is the real question.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It's an unusually important question and is 
as I think you stated in asking the question, transformation is 
about more than money and as Secretary Rumsfeld said 
repeatedly, it's probably the changes in the way people think 
that are the most important piece of it, the way they organize 
and the way they operate. That includes looking systematically 
at how we do things and whether we are continuing to do things 
just because we have done them for the last 10 or 20 or 30 
years and we don't need to do them anymore. That's the Sinai, 
for example, where the President of Egypt and the Prime 
Minister of Israel disagree, and I think that's an example. 
We're looking very systematically at where we want to be 
combining either for efficiency or for improved combat 
effectiveness. We now have Army guys on the ground interacting 
with long-range bomber pilots in ways that----
    Senator Shelby. And it is working too, is it not.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. It is. So we really do have to think 
differently, and we do have to keep in mind this Legacy force 
which you referred to and we are investing in it. The real 
reason for the three tactical fighters is to make sure that the 
Legacy force works, I don't really like that word, but that the 
main part of our force can fight our wars for the next 10 years 
while we build those future capabilities.
    Now, I cannot remember how many smart comments I have read 
about how if the previous budget did not cut 30,000 people out 
of the Army or out of the Navy or the Air Force, I have not 
read it about the Marine Corps, but at any rate, imagine where 
we would be, I think now, in light of the questions the 
chairman was asking about the possibility of even an increased 
end strength, if we had started whacking away force structure. 
We took a very careful look at force structure during the 
summer in the QDR and we concluded that we could reduce the 
strain on the force structure by changing our strategic 
concept, but given the deployment requirements that we had, 
that we needed something roughly the size of what we have 
today. It's not an accident that we are the only country in the 
world that can even think about mounting operations in a remote 
place like Afghanistan on 3 weeks notice. We are a much safer 
country today because we were able to do that and I think it's 
an investment that is worth it.
    Senator Shelby. And I thank you.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Specter.
    Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, I join my colleagues in 
welcoming you here. How are you enjoying the job?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Enjoying it.
    Senator Specter. We see that Iraq has dominated a good bit 
of the news. When Secretary of State Colin Powell recently 
commented about the ``axis of evil,'' he said we do not plan to 
go to war against North Korea and we did not plan to go to war 
against Iran, but Iraq was conspicuously absent with a 
nondeclaration. By 20-20 hindsight, I think most would agree 
that we made a mistake in not proceeding against Osama bin 
Laden and al Qaeda. This is based on the indictments which have 
been returned in Federal court against bin Laden for killing 
Americans in Mogadishu in 1993, the embassy bombings in 1998, 
and the implication of the U.S.S. Cole and his worldwide 
``jihad.'' What Saddam Hussein is doing is a real problem.
    Aside from the comments which have been made by the 
officials, it seems to me that it might be very useful for this 
subcommittee or the Appropriations Committee sitting as a 
whole, or perhaps Armed Services or Foreign Relations, to 
conduct hearings to try to get as much on the public record as 
we can so that the public understands. Some things would have 
to be said confidentially in closed session, but it would be 
useful in my view to know, as specifically as we can in public 
session with the balance in closed session, the threat which 
Saddam poses with weapons of mass destruction, the specifics of 
what he has done by ignoring the United Nations, and the 
chances of his compliance. I see the Secretary General is now 
going to meet with him. He has a track record of backing down 
when things look like they are getting tough. What is the game 
plan and a rough outline, again perhaps in closed session, and 
what happens after he is caught? It could hardly be a surprise 
to Saddam Hussein to know that is something that may happen.

      CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON TERRORISM POLICIES AND CONSULTATION

    What is your thinking on the utility of such congressional 
hearings?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Senator, you raise a whole series of 
unquestionably key issues that people have to think through. I 
think you can understand that for any of us in the executive 
branch, these are decisions that can be taken only by the 
President, and he has made some very clear and important 
statements.
    Senator Specter. He did this only for the press. What 
happened to consultation with Congress?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Well, I think there are appropriate ways to 
do consultation. I think what the President laid before the 
Congress and the country on January 29th is the fact that we 
have a problem. The problem is countries that are openly 
hostile toward the United States, supporting terrorists and 
pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and the implications of 
where that is heading is too dangerous for us to sit back and 
wait for it to happen and react afterwards.
    I think you made the very correct analogy that we should 
have dealt with bin Laden before September 11th. And of course 
you recognize as we all do, that had we done so, no doubt 
people would have said we didn't have sufficient evidence. 
We're in that zone where we can't wait until we have proof 
beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Senator Specter. What is the congressional role on a 
declaration of war or the authorization of use of force? The 
President came to the Congress and formed a resolution for the 
use of force against al Qaeda. Of course he knew he would get 
it.
    In 1991, some recollections differ, but I have a pretty 
firm recollection that President George H.W. Bush did not want 
a resolution, but he got one. It was a tough debate. It was the 
most important debate that has happened in the 22 years I have 
been here.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. That's correct. He did want a resolution, 
and some debated that, and he made the decision to in fact ask 
for it. But you are right, it was an absolute critical debate, 
and I think it was very important.
    Senator Specter. Is not the country better served for the 
issue to come before the Congress if there is consideration by 
the President on the use of force against Iraq?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. The problem is, I think in your question, 
you're sort of assuming that he has made decisions that I don't 
know that he has made yet, and I am not at all in the position 
to start speculating.
    Senator Specter. There is a lot of attribution that he did 
make the decision.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. Well, and a lot of it is completely 
erroneous, so don't believe everything you read.
    Senator Specter. That is why I used that word attribute, 
there was no charge there.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. And I don't make decisions about that sort 
of thing.
    Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, you have done an 
outstanding job for years and years. I know there is going to 
be some resolution and when it comes, you will get it. However, 
I want to state one member's opinion, that the Congress ought 
to be involved and the American people ought to be involved and 
there ought to be a guideline. One way to get there--I do not 
know of another good way to get there--is on the hearing law, 
and it seems to me imminent enough so that the Congress ought 
to consider the matter. As to how we resolve it, I do not know 
that I raise it, but I do want to talk to you about this latest 
proposal.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I would add, Senator, that there are 
obviously things that are easily discussed in closed sessions 
that we wouldn't want to be sitting out here discussing while 
Saddam Hussein or Mr. Khomeini or other people are listening to 
us, so that is one aspect of the dialogue that I think you need 
to keep in mind as well. And we have had, I think I have 
participated by now in four or five of them, I think very good 
closed sessions with the full Senate.
    Senator Specter. I agree with you about the closed 
sessions. Although the sessions we have in S-407 are very 
helpful, they are not really like hearings where you have 10 
minutes to pursue a question and even that is not necessarily 
enough. However, I commend you for your consideration, because 
some of us feel very strongly that the Congress ought to get 
involved at an early date, and you cannot quite wait until the 
President has made a decision to use force, because then the 
Congress is out of it.

                         ARAB-ISRAELI RELATIONS

    Let me ask you about the proposals for Israel to go back to 
pre-1967 borders and for the Arab states--to say normalized is 
the wrong word because they have never been normal--to 
recognize Israel and Israel's right to exist. Concerns which 
trouble me are how do you do that and protect the Israelis who 
are in settlements outside the 1967 borders. When we talk about 
relations, how do we deal with Saudi Arabia, other foreign 
countries, or other Arab countries in order to have a real 
peace?
    Since Camp David, the United States has given $50 billion 
plus in aid to Egypt, and there is a very cool peace. When 
President Mubarak has been asked about it, he says that is the 
best he can do, but they do not have real trade, visitor 
exchanges, they do not really have a warm peace, so if the 
matter is to be pursued, what can be done on those two big 
issues for assurances to Israel so that they will be getting 
something in exchange for that kind of concession?
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I think ultimately the Israelis have to make 
the decision about what, if anything, to do. I know when 
President Sadat made his courageous visit to Israel in 1977, so 
in that time in fact we have made progress. If you think back 
to then, it was a time that Sadat used the word Israel when 
speaking to the Israeli press, and it was the first time in 
history that an Arab leader had referred to Israel by its 
proper name. And he changed, as I think you remember, I 
remember vividly, in just 24 hours, changed the whole 
psychological outlook of the Israeli public, Israeli people 
toward making peace with Egypt, and in fact led to a return to 
the 1967 borders and a peace which for all of its coolness, has 
actually been sustained to this day.
    But that coolness, unfortunately, is one of the things that 
contributes, I think, to Israeli reluctance now to take risks, 
and I think it certainly would make a big difference in moving 
toward a peace settlement that I think the Israelis desperately 
want, we certainly want to see it, I think the Palestinian 
people desperately need to create that atmosphere, where people 
are willing to take risks.
    Senator Specter. I quite agree with you, it is an Israeli 
decision, but the President purportedly told the Crown Prince, 
and I think the United States is going to be involved.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to close by posing two questions and 
asking for written responses, Mr. Secretary. I am pleased to 
see that there is a request for $1.9 billion for the V-22 
Osprey. I would appreciate a response in writing on how the 
Osprey is looking, what are the tests showing. There were lots 
of problems on falsification of records, but I think it's a 
great plane, let us see where that stands.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. We will get that for you, Senator.
    [The information follows:]


    The V-22 returned to flight test in May 2002, and as of 10 
June 2002 has flown four sorties for a total of 5.5 hours. The 
comprehensive inspections indicate that the current 
modifications made to the hydraulics system with respect to 
line clearance are effective and safe. These modifications will 
continue to be assessed as we complete more flight tests. 
Flight tests that have been conducted have exceeded all 
expectations in regard to aircraft performance and reliability. 
Test pilots report that the aircraft is performing well.
    The flight test program has been thoroughly restructured to 
assess the effectiveness of solutions, regarding reliability of 
hydraulic system components and flight control software, 
overall aircraft and reliability rates and operational 
effectiveness. By October of 2003 the flight test program will 
have gradually increased from one to seven Marine (MV) variants 
actively involved in flight testing. Flight testing of the 
Special Operations (CV) variant is scheduled to start in August 
2002.

    Senator Specter. The second question I would like to ask 
is, you have almost $400 million for the C-130 aircraft, 
including $176 million for the C-130J, but there is nothing for 
the EC-130J, which is used by the 193rd Special Operations 
Wing, which has done extraordinary service in Kosovo and 
elsewhere. The wing is desperately in need of two new planes to 
carry on their mission. If you can, please give me a response 
to that.
    Thank you very much for the good work you are doing, Mr. 
Secretary and Dr. Zakheim.
    [The information follows:]

                            EC-130 Aircraft
    I am very proud of the job that has been done by our special 
operations Commando Solo crews in Afghanistan. Commando Solos are 
unique, high demand/low density platforms and continue to be an asset 
for the department. Commando Solo is also wholly comprised of volunteer 
air national guardsmen.
    Thanks to Congressional support, the transition from the EC-130E to 
the EC-130J model was made possible by additional funds in fiscal years 
1997 through 2001, providing five of the planned eight C-130J aircraft 
and special operations-unique modifications. The Air Force Master Plan 
provides funding for the remaining three C-130J for conversion to EC-
130J in fiscal years 2006 through 2008. The 193rd Special Operations 
Wing is the only unit that flies the EC-130 and will receive all eight 
EC-130J aircraft. In addition, the fiscal year 2003 budget request 
contains $79.4 million to mitigate special mission equipment 
obsolescence and degraded capability equipment issues on EC-130 
aircraft.

    Dr. Wolfowitz. Senator, forgive me for the reminiscence. I 
remember when you visited Indonesia when I was Ambassador, and 
you were there as I recall, as the junior Senator from Russell, 
Kansas, but you are now the senior Senator, am I right?
    Senator Specter. That is right, I was the junior Senator 
from Russell, Kansas, and Senator Dole is still the senior 
Senator from Russell, Kansas.
    Dr. Wolfowitz. I just thought it was remarkable, two 
Senators from different States and both born in the same small 
town in Kansas.
    Senator Specter. It is in the water, Mr. Secretary.
    Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, Dr. Zakheim, we thank you 
very much for appearing before the subcommittee today, and we 
will continue our discussions throughout this year.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Several members have requested that they be permitted to 
submit questions to you for your consideration, and I hope you 
will do so.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
               Questions Submitted to Dr. Paul Wolfowitz
            Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
            ballistic missile defense-missile defense agency
    Question. Mr. Secretary, the Department recently established the 
Missile Defense Agency to take the place of the old Ballistic Missile 
Defense Office. We have heard many concerns about this new agency being 
shielded from appropriate oversight both in the Pentagon and by 
Congress. Can you give us your assurance that this is not the case?
    Answer. I can assure you that the changes to our missile defense 
structure, rather than shielding the MDA from appropriate oversight, 
will provide for more consistent and immediate oversight by the 
Department's most senior leaders.
    The Secretary of Defense redesignated the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization as the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to underscore the 
national priority placed on missile defense and to provide MDA the 
authority and structure consistent with development of a single, 
integrated missile defense system. But while the Secretary provided the 
MDA Director with new authorities that differ from traditional 
Department processes, he has taken action to ensure that the Department 
has direct and focused executive oversight. The Senior Executive 
Council (SEC), which I chair, provides the primary oversight of the 
MDA. Among its other responsibilities, the SEC will provide policy, 
planning and programming guidance to the MDA; decide whether to stop, 
start, slow, or accelerate their efforts; and approve transition and 
fielding recommendations. In addition to the SEC, the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics [USD(AT&L)], has 
established a Missile Defense Support Group (MDSG) of Department 
experts that provides advice to him, the MDA Director and supports SEC 
decision-making. While not an oversight group, the MDSG does perform 
independent analyses. Both the MDA Director and the MDSG chairman 
report to the USD (AT&L), providing senior Department officials real-
time involvement in MDA activities and helping reduce our decision-
making cycle time.
    With regard to congressional oversight, the Department will 
continue to provide Congress the same documentation as we have in the 
past. Although there are changes in the information we will provide, 
the changes will be consistent with the changes to the missile defense 
structure. For example, we will submit a Selected Acquisition Report 
(SAR) for the BMD System RDT&E program that includes major schedule 
objectives, an estimate of RDT&E funding, and major prime contractor 
cost performance data. However, unit cost data for individual elements 
will only be included once the SEC decides to start procurement of that 
element. An example of this is the PAC-3 program where the Department 
submitted a separate SAR this year to support its transition to the 
Army. In addition to the BMD System SAR, we continue to provide 
Congress our annual detailed Budget Justification materials. These 
materials include detailed budget and schedule summaries for all major 
budget projects. Finally, the Department will continue to provide 
extensive briefings to both Members of Congress and their staffs.
    Question. Since the military services ultimately will be the ones 
who procure and implement BMD systems, what role will they play in 
shaping ballistic missile defense policy and programs? Do the services 
have a say in ballistic missile defense budget matters?
    Answer. The Management structure of the Ballistic Missile Defense 
System (BMDS) is designed to allow the MDA to focus on research, 
development, testing and demonstration of BMD capabilities, while 
providing for the transition of proven capabilities to system 
development and the transfer to the services for procurement, 
operations, and support. The Services have an important role throughout 
the BMDS life cycle, both in policy planning and budget development.
    BMD policy is guided by a Senior Executive Council (SEC) 
established by the Secretary of Defense (SecDef). The SEC includes the 
Service Secretaries, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics) and chaired by me. The SEC reviews and 
approves MDA and service planning and budgeting for the fielding of 
specific capabilities, through system development and transfer to the 
user Service for procurement. The Services, in concert with the Joint 
Staff, determine force structure requirements, and budget for 
procurement, operations and support within the service TOA.
    At the RDT&E project level, service liaison offices are being 
established within the MDA to ensure that force integration planning 
and requirements are included in the MDA-funded capability development 
and demonstration phase. The Director, MDA will also have individual 
Service Boards of Directors with each Service Acquisition Executive to 
provide regular consultation and to resolve issues that cannot be 
rapidly satisfied at a lower level. Potential system cost estimates 
must include full provisions for Service procurement, operations, and 
support. Service participation in development and planning will 
increase during the transition phase, in order to ensure a smooth 
transfer of management and system support responsibilities.
                         defense health program
    Question. In past years the Department has seldom been able to 
project its required expenditures for the Defense Health Program (DHP). 
The Department deserves praise for its efforts to provide realistic 
costs in the fiscal year 2003 budget request for the DHP. However, the 
expansion of TRICARE and rising health care costs will continue to 
generate stress on the military health system, which supports 8.3 
million military beneficiaries. Assuming there is no supplemental in 
fiscal year 2003, and shortfalls in military healthcare arise, how will 
the Department cover those shortfalls without jeopardizing the health 
care of patients?
    Answer. The Department recognizes that health care is an 
entitlement and will not jeopardize the health care of patients. If 
there is a shortfall in the budget for military health care and there 
is no supplemental, the Department will have to reprogram resources 
internally to cover the shortfall. However, we believe that the fiscal 
year 2003 Defense Health Program (DHP) is adequately funded based on 
recent healthcare cost experience and do not anticipate a shortfall. 
The pharmacy program is budgeted at 15 percent and Managed Care Support 
Contracts are budgeted at 12 percent over fiscal year 2002 levels to 
account for anticipated inflation and program growth. These are areas 
that have been budgeted at lower levels in the past and contained the 
greatest risk for our program. As a result of these increases, a 
significant portion of our fiscal risk has been mitigated. The 
establishment of the DOD Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund 
also serves to limit some of the financial risk in the DHP and the 
Department as a whole by providing a mandatory funding source 
(independent from DHP appropriations) to pay for Medicare-eligible 
care.
    Question. How will the Military Treatment Facilities accommodate 
the expansion of TRICARE benefits, particularly with the influx of 
older retirees who tend to have unique health care needs, tend to 
require more patient visits per year, and tend to require more 
prescription drugs?
    Answer. Overall, the Military Health System will handle the 
expansion of TRICARE to include 65-and-over beneficiaries by 
implementing the Medicare Eligible Military Retiree Health Care Fund, 
authorized by section 713 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2001. This will provide resources to fund the out-of-pocket 
costs of these beneficiaries after Medicare pays, as well as to pay for 
their care in Military Treatment Facilities.
    Our senior beneficiaries continue to be eligible for care in 
military facilities, but it is important to recognize that the capacity 
of military facilities did not increase by virtue of the enactment of 
TRICARE for Life. We recognize that many beneficiaries want to continue 
to receive care at military facilities, while also taking advantage of 
TRICARE for Life benefits. Therefore, last year we established a new 
program called ``TRICARE Plus,'' a primary care enrollment program that 
gives seniors (and other beneficiaries not in managed care plans) an 
opportunity to enroll and be assigned to a primary care doctor at the 
military facility. This opportunity is limited by local capacity. When 
these beneficiaries need care beyond the capabilities of the MTF, they 
use their civilian health care benefits, in most cases TRICARE for 
Life.
    Question. How does the fiscal year 2003 budget request address the 
problems of recruiting and retaining medical personnel, particularly in 
the reserves?
    Answer. The Defense Health Program portion of the budget designates 
an increase in funding of $8.2 million to the Armed Forces Health 
Professions' Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) to increase scholarships by 
approximately 282. The budget also includes an increase of $3.75 
million to expand use of the Health Professions' Loan Repayment Program 
(HPLRP).
                      tactical aircraft purchases
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, it is a well known fact that 
modernizing our tactical air forces is critical to sustaining our 
military superiority in the future. Yet, in many top-of-the-line DOD 
aircraft procurement programs, such as the F-18 fighter and C-17 cargo 
aircraft, the Department's fiscal year 2003 request cuts the number of 
aircraft to be bought compared to last year. What are the Department's 
reasons for not increasing tactical aircraft purchase rates at the same 
time that your budget is increasing by $48 billion?
    Answer. We believe that the Department's long-term tactical fighter 
modernization efforts are leading to a truly ``transformational'' 
fighter force structure. We are moving as rapidly as feasible toward a 
highly survivable, capabilities-based fighter force that meets the 
future needs and provides the users with an asymmetric capability 
advantage. The Department is trying to balance the procurement of 
adequate numbers of F/A-18E/F fighter aircraft with simultaneous wise 
investment in the development and procurement of the next generation of 
more capable fighters. The Department's fiscal year 2003 budget request 
demonstrates this time-phased TACAIR modernization plan. With regard to 
existing fighter aircraft procurement, the budget request continues to 
support the full-rate production of the F/A-18E/F aircraft. Likewise, 
the Department continues to aggressively pursue an increasing ramp-up 
of F-22 aircraft towards full-rate production (e.g., the program is 
currently in low-rate production). It should be noted that combined F/
A-18E/F and F-22 procurement has increased by 6 aircraft from fiscal 
year 2002 to fiscal year 2003. The Department's commitment to next 
generation fighter development is demonstrated by aggressive efforts to 
complete F-22 development, and our continued increase in the Joint 
Strike Fighter System Development and Demonstration program from 
approximately $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2002, to $3.5 billion in 
fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 2003 request also funds the follow-on 
multi-year procurement of 60 additional C-17 cargo aircraft, which 
maintains a production delivery rate of 15 aircraft per year until 
fiscal year 2008. In terms of procurement spending, a comparison of 
fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003 spending in the U.S. Navy and U.S. 
Air Force aircraft procurement reflects the Department is spending 
about $2 billion more on its recapitalization efforts. In addition to 
the aforementioned efforts, the Department has expanded selected 
transformation initiatives, such as the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle, 
that may offer the potential as a force enabler to augment manned 
aircraft by enhancing our ability to hold certain military targets at 
risk with decreased risk to personnel. The Department considers that 
the President's Budget provides the appropriate balance between current 
acquisition programs and future development efforts to ensure needed 
future air warfare capabilities.
    Question. Mr. Secretary, isn't it true that, over the long term, if 
we don't purchase modern aircraft at a sufficient rate, we will have to 
cut our force structure? Do you anticipate that this will occur in the 
near future?
    Answer. When we construct our annual acquisition program plans, we 
try to account for the projected phase out of aging aircraft types in 
an effort to maintain adequate force structure into the future. Combat 
aircraft typically have a service life of 20-30 years, depending upon 
type. Therefore, combat aircraft forces need to be sustained with 
recapitalization programs that anticipate future needs well in advance. 
The Department reviews threat estimates and emerging operational needs 
in updating force structure and modernization plans as needed. In some 
cases, new operational concepts, weapons, and support systems 
eventually may permit some force structure reductions. In other cases, 
new operational needs may call for selected increases. The DOD's 
acquisition program plans factor all these considerations into our 
annual acquisition program request. The Department considers that the 
President's fiscal year 2003 Budget provides for procurement of the 
aircraft needed to achieve required modernization and maintain 
sufficient force structure for the foreseeable future.
    Question. We have just returned from a trip to the war region in 
Central Asia where we heard from our military commanders there that the 
one system they needed more of was the C-17 airlift aircraft. Have you 
heard these reports? What are your thoughts about which aircraft have 
been the most useful in our Afghanistan engagement?
    Answer. It is true that airlift, especially the C-17, is high on 
the CINC's priority list. However, to suggest that one aircraft in 
particular has been the most useful in carrying out Operation Enduring 
Freedom would not be appropriate. Comparisons between the contributions 
of the different platforms tend to obscure the fact that different 
aircraft, both sea- and land-based, provide unique and complementary 
capabilities. The success that we have enjoyed has been the result of 
the flexible mix of aircraft systems available to support military 
operations.
    During Operation Enduring Freedom, land-based United States and 
British tankers refueled carrier-based fighter-bombers, while B-1s and 
B-52s relied heavily on the Navy's electronic warfare EA-6B and strike 
aircraft to disable or destroy enemy air defenses helping to assure 
access to targets, and helping to assist in providing access to assure 
targets access. Much of the success of the Navy's tactical aircraft 
TACAIR success was the direct result of the support provided by Air 
Force KC-135 and United Kingdom Royal Air Force UK RAF Tanker aircraft. 
Pilots from all services benefited from targeting information provided 
by special mission aircraft such as Joint STARS, P-3s, and Predator and 
Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles. U.S. Special Operation Forces and 
anti-Taleban Afghan observers provided eyes on the ground. Army Apache 
and Marine Cobra helicopters provided close air support to our troops 
fighting on the ground, as recently witnessed in Operation Anaconda. 
Other aircraft, such as the AC-130 gun ships, conducted effective 
missions by night and struck terror in the hearts of terrorists while 
hunting them down in the dark of night. Transports such as C-17 and C-
130 provided critical logistic support while Army and Marine 
helicopters furnished mobility and supplies to dispersed forces on the 
ground.
    All of these aircraft are playing a vital role in Operation 
Enduring Freedom.
                        tanker aircraft leasing
    Question. Mr. Secretary, last year the Congress enacted legislation 
allowing the Air Force to lease up to 100 Boeing 767's for replacing 
its aging air-refueling tanker fleet. It is my understanding that no 
contract agreement has been reached on this program. What is the status 
of this program? When do you anticipate an agreement to proceed on this 
program will be reached?
    Answer. Pursuant to the legislation, the Air Force intends to 
negotiate with Boeing for up to 100 Boeing 767 tankers. Currently, the 
Air Force is reviewing information provided by both Boeing and Airbus 
in an effort to gauge available technology and properly bound and 
define the business case required by the 2002 statute. An agreement to 
proceed on this program will not be reached until we have negotiated a 
good deal for the department and I have reported to the Congressional 
Defense Committees. I anticipate reporting my findings to Congress in 
accordance with the legislation this summer.
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, do you agree that the Air Force's 
tanker fleet is aging and in need of replacement?
    Answer. Yes, I agree the Air Force's tanker fleet is aging and in 
need of replacement. The vast majority of the tanker fleet is comprised 
of KC-135s, which were delivered between 1957 and 1965 and have an 
average fleet age of over 41 years. The operations and sustainment 
costs for this aging fleet are projected to rise in the years to come, 
while operational availability is expected to decline, making 
recapitalization crucial. While we recognize the need for replacement, 
any approach to modernizing the fleet, whether by leasing aircraft, 
buying new aircraft, or some other approach, will be reviewed by the 
Department prior to any decision being implemented to ensure the 
approach represents best value to the Government.
    Question. Moreover, do you agree that contingency operations, such 
as the one we have ongoing in Afghanistan, place a great burden on our 
tanker aircraft?
    Answer. Yes, I agree that contingency operations, such as Operation 
Enduring Freedom, place a great burden on our tanker aircraft.
    Question. Do you also agree that, in the absence of adequate 
procurement funds, that an operational lease program is the best way to 
modernize our tanker aircraft force?
    Answer. We are still considering the most efficient way to 
modernize our tanker aircraft force. An operational lease program is 
one option under consideration, but it is premature to state if leasing 
is the best approach.
                       ballistic missile defense
    Question. Mr. Secretary, the Department's Ballistic Missile Defense 
program has recently suffered some significant setbacks. First the Navy 
Area Theater missile defense program was terminated. And second, the 
Space Based Radar--Low program is being dramatically restructured. The 
Department, to date, has provided no clear indication of how it intends 
to address these issues. Can you recommend to the Committee how we 
should proceed to deal with these issues?
    Answer. A sea-based terminal ballistic missile defense capability 
is only one of the opportunities that exist for the development of a 
multi-tiered land-sea-air-space-based missile defense. Mr. Aldridge has 
tasked the Missile Defense Agency in close consultation with the Navy, 
to address sea-based terminal ballistic missile defense capability as 
part of the integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System and for the 
Navy to address its extended-range anti-air warfare needs in light of 
cancellation of the Navy Area Missile Defense Program.
    The prior plan for SBIRS Low was based on a stressing requirement 
set tailored for the difficult, sophisticated threat projected for the 
National Missile Defense Program. The schedule for the launch of the 
first generation satellite was considered moderate to high risk. MDA 
expects to present, by 15 May, a restructured program adopting an 
evolutionary approach to the performance of the sensor system element, 
and a more realistic schedule.
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, do the problems in these two missile 
defense systems undermine the concept of developing a ``layered'' 
missile defense?
    Answer. No. The actions taken by the MDA, with the concurrence of 
the SEC, regarding SBIRS Low and Navy Area, demonstrate the flexibility 
inherent in managing the BMD program as an integrated system. The 
program envisions a layered defense with evolving capability 
objectives, based on the projected threat capabilities and the phased 
deployment of system elements in blocks of demonstrated missile defense 
technologies.
    The MDA, with participation by the services and CINCs, is working 
to develop a Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) that layers 
defenses to intercept missile in all phases of their flight (i.e., 
boost, midcourse, and terminal) against all ranges of threats. In doing 
so, the MDA plans and executes work such that efforts in a particular 
area of the BMDS may be truncated or stopped if the results are 
unsatisfactory or where the development effort should be shifted to 
another integrated BMDS element to permit its acceleration.
    The Navy Area program suffered technical and schedule challenges, 
that impacted cost. This put the Department in the position of being 
unable to certify to the Nunn-McCurdy stipulations and resulted in the 
program's cancellation. The MDA is addressing the Sea-Based Terminal 
element in the context of its role in fulfilling a portion of the 
layered BMDS. As part of the SBIRS Low restructure the element is 
converting to a spiral development, capability-based approach. The 
initial satellites will support the BMDS Test Bed. These first 
satellites may have less capability and therefore lower schedule and 
technical risk of achieving launch. Subsequent satellites will have 
greater capability as technology matures. This will allow for early 
contingency operations and increasing capability. Lessons learned from 
the initial satellite operations will feed back to later satellites, 
increasing their capability and lowering their schedule and technical 
risks. An adjustment to the funding profile across the Future Years 
Defense Plan (FYDP) may be required to provide the best capability for 
the country.
    Question. What are the arms control treaty implications of your 
ballistic missile defense budget request? Is the ABM Treaty violated if 
the Committee approves your program as requested?
    Answer. All DOD activities, including those in the Missile Defense 
Agency budget, will be conducted in compliance with U.S. arms control 
obligations. With respect to the ABM Treaty of 1972, on December 13, 
2001, the United States gave notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty, 
effective six months from that date (June 14th). The ABM Treaty will 
not be violated if the Committee approves the missile defense program 
as requested.
                             space programs
    Question. Mr. Secretary, achieving dominance in space is a key to 
transforming our military. Unfortunately, some of our more critical 
space programs--the Space Based Radar satellites and the Advanced EHF 
satellite, to name a few--have experienced delays, cost overruns and 
other performance problems. Does the Department have a plan to manage 
these programs in order to avoid additional cost overruns and delays?
    Answer. Yes. For example, the Space Based Radar is a relative new 
start. We stood up a program office to manage this effort last May 
2001. Although there has been considerable discussion between the Air 
Force and the National Reconnaissance Office over how to optimally 
structure the program office, so far we are unaware of any other 
management, cost or schedule problems.
    In the case of the Advanced EHF, which provides protected satellite 
communications for a number of high priority command and control 
functions, we have taken several actions. In response to the Advanced 
EHF problems, caused by an attempt to accelerate the launch schedule as 
a result of the loss of a Milstar EHF satellite in 2000, we have 
increased the oversight of the execution of this program and are also 
evaluating alternatives for meeting the operational requirements after 
satellite three. Our objective is a transformational communications 
architecture that supports the expanding bandwidth requirements of the 
warfighter.
    Question. Do you view the problems in these programs to be more a 
function of management difficulties or technical difficulties?
    Answer. At this time I am not aware of any significant management 
or technical issues with Space Based Radar. Some have expressed concern 
about management challenges associated with effectively integrating Air 
Force and National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) expertise into a single 
program office, but these concerns are mitigated by the assignment of 
Mr. Peter Teets to serve as both the Undersecretary of the Air Force 
and the Director of NRO.
    As described in the previous question, the Department has taken 
several actions to address the Advanced EHF management issues. 
Additionally, the Department has identified a new approach to 
technically satisfy the expanding warfighter requirement for very high 
bandwidth capacity and the continuing need for secure national level 
command and control. Instead of proceeding beyond satellite three with 
the Advanced EHF, the Department is proposing two new start satellite 
communication programs in fiscal year 2003, as follows:
  --The Advance Wideband Satellite program, for which we are asking 
        $200 million in fiscal year 2003, will utilize Laser 
        communications to relay surveillance and reconnaissance 
        information for processing and dissemination.
  --The National Strategic Satellite Communications System, for which 
        we are asking for $10 million in fiscal year 2003 with a 
        significant ramp up in the out-years, will provide highly 
        protected communications for national level command and 
        control.
                    defense emergency response fund
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, earlier this month you testified 
before another Senate Committee that the Defense Emergency Response 
Fund would run out of funds sometime in April. What is the current 
status of Defense Emergency Fund balances available to the Department, 
and is that still your forecast?
    Answer. I continue to estimate that Defense Emergency Response Fund 
balances will be fully exhausted in April. Through the end of February, 
$11.9 billion of the $15.2 billion appropriated to DERF has been 
committed, obligated or pending transfer to restore funds advanced from 
the baseline appropriations for the cost of the war on terrorism. 
However, the funds appropriated and apportioned in the last 
supplemental for increased OPTEMPO and the pay costs of Guard and 
Reserve personnel who have been mobilized are already depleted. The 
Military Departments have begun to advance funding from the fourth 
quarter operation and maintenance and military pay accounts to fund the 
high OPTEMPO and pay costs associated with continuing the war on 
terrorism. However, I anticipate that the supplemental funds that will 
soon be requested will be sufficient to make the operation and 
maintenance and military pay accounts whole again, and therefore there 
will be no impact of DOD readiness.
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, for how long does the Department 
envision maintaining the reserve mobilization at the current levels?
    Answer. The global war on terrorism will be variable and dynamic 
and, as the President has said, will more than likely go on for years. 
Thus, there are many unknown factors, including how long it will be 
necessary to maintain the current level of reserve mobilization. As the 
global war on terrorism evolves, the Department will continue to 
evaluate the use of Reserve Component personnel and ensure that they 
are being employed effectively for essential requirements. Judicious 
use of resources is a critical element of executing the war on 
terrorism over the long term and it is important that we not exhaust 
the available pool of Reservists and Guardsmen in the early phases of 
this operation.
    Question. Are the respective armed services using current year 
operation and maintenance funding to provide for increased force 
protection costs, or are these being covered by Emergency Response Fund 
dollars?
    Answer. The DOD's baseline budget in fiscal year 2002 for force 
protection was $4.5 billion for the protection of DOD personnel against 
acts of terrorism. After threat conditions markedly changed, the 
Department sought additional funds for force protection last autumn. An 
additional $1.4 billion was provided. I intend that all additional 
force protection requirements in fiscal year 2002 be funding via 
supplemental funding. To do otherwise would threaten the ability to 
sustain readiness funded in the baseline operation and maintenance 
accounts.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
                      strategy on future conflicts
    Question. Recent articles and statements by Administration 
officials have indicated that we are not ready to engage in a conflict 
with Iraq at this time. I am not advocating such a move, but I am 
surprised that the United States is not prepared. Our previous national 
strategy was to be ready to fight and win two major regional conflicts, 
our current strategy is to fight and win against a major regional 
adversary, while defending against another regional adversary in 
another theater. If that is our strategy, why are we unprepared to deal 
with Iraq? Why do we not have enough precision guided munitions to 
fight a relatively small conflict and then take on a regional 
adversary? Is this a failure of the Department of Defense to accurately 
plan what we need to fight these future conflicts?
    Answer. The current strategy requires the United States to fight 
and win two overlapping wars, and we are capable of prosecuting that 
strategy today. Our armed forces have many capabilities that can be 
brought to bear against an adversary. The skillful orchestration of 
these various capabilities in the right mix appropriate to the threat 
is the objective of advance planning. In light of our increasing usage 
of precision munitions in recent combat we are adapting our production 
rates and planning accordingly.
                  elimination of cold war era programs
    Question. I am concerned that since the Department of Defense 
funding is increasing by such large amounts there is no political will 
to eliminate Cold War era programs that are no longer relevant to 
future conflicts. The Secretary has talked about making tough choices 
to move the military toward transformation, but this budget doesn't 
seem to make any choices. Instead of transformation over tradition we 
are getting both the old systems and the new. Can you provide some 
examples where the Department of Defense has decided to eliminate 
weapon systems or programs, outside of missile defense, in favor of 
newer approaches? Where has the Department of Defense decided to skip a 
generation of technology as the President proposed?
    Answer. There are several examples where the Department of Defense 
is eliminating weapon systems and programs. Recently the Army 
terminated 18 of its programs that are not planned for the Objective 
Force. Eleven (11) of those programs will be terminated in fiscal year 
2003, while the remaining seven (7) will be terminated between fiscal 
year 2004 and fiscal year 2007. The funding associated with these 18 
systems has been realigned to support higher Army priorities. The Army 
will also eliminate several different rotor aircraft in its inventory 
upon fielding the Comanche helicopter. When the Comanche is fully 
fielded, the Army will have only three types of helicopters (Comanche, 
Black Hawk, and Chinook). By eliminating 1,000 Vietnam-era aircraft 
from the force, AH-1 Cobras this year and UH-1 Hueys by fiscal year 
2004, the Army will free the resources needed to support other 
transformation goals. The Navy cancelled the DD 21 Land Attack 
Destroyer program and will satisfy those requirements through the DD(X) 
program which will focus efforts on maturing transformational 
technologies. This move will also increase risk reduction efforts while 
establishing a family of ships that will include the future cruiser 
(CG(X)), the future destroyer (DD(X)), and a littoral combat ship 
(LCS). The DD(X) program is also an example of the Department's efforts 
to skip a current generation of weapons in favor a greater future 
capability.
                    requirements generation process
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Act helped establish a process to 
ensure the requirements of the warfighter initiate and guide the 
development of military weapons programs. Congress felt that 
identification of warfighter requirements should be a documented 
process in any weapons development program. The Department of Defense 
has exempted the missile defense program from the Requirements 
Generation Process, thereby taking the warfighter and documented 
warfighter requirements out of the development process. Outside of 
allowing the warfighter to provide unofficial and verbal input to the 
development process, what efforts will the Department take to ensure 
that warfighters are allowed to document their requirements and 
establish performance parameters which the acquisition community must 
meet to ensure the missile defense programs have adequate military 
utility?
    Answer. Under the new management approach for Ballistic Missile 
Defense (BMD), warfighter involvement in establishing the needs of the 
fighting forces will be robust and ongoing. In fact, under this new 
approach, there will be even greater opportunity for the warfighter to 
influence the development of BMD and its earliest deployment to the 
fighting forces than ever before.
    Developing BMD as a single program with a capability-based approach 
will produce a better outcome and provide greater Service involvement. 
Under the new approach, the warfighter will provide the Missile Defense 
Agency (MDA) with the desired operational features and approaches to 
system development. The Joint Theater and Missile Defense Organization 
(JTAMDO) will serve as the voice for the Commanders in Chief (CINCs) 
and the Military Services to lead the collaborative effort with the 
CINCs and Services on operational matters. JTAMDO will also develop the 
operational concepts, develop the operational architecture, and assess 
military utility, during BMD System (BMDS) development and transition 
to production. Further, MDA will work closely with JTAMDO in developing 
the joint command and control architecture for the BMDS and integrating 
it into the applicable joint command and control architectures for air 
and missile defense.
    Under the new approach, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
and the Services will be included in deliberative and advisory bodies 
that will influence BMD development on an ongoing basis. The Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Services are included in the 
Missile Defense Support Group (MDSG) and the Working Group which 
supports the MDSG principals. Under the former process, meetings of 
principals from the Services with senior officials of MDA were 
infrequent, normally occurring on the occasion of a milestone decision 
or other significant program event. By contrast, the MDSG meets 
frequently, providing a unique opportunity for the warfighter to voice 
concerns on BMD development.
    Additionally, MDA has created a separate forum for intensive 
engagement with the Services. A Joint Board of Directors between MDA 
and each of the Military Services has been created. Meetings of the 
Board of Directors will be conducted frequently to ensure that BMD 
development effort is conducted with full involvement of the Services.
    Finally, the Services will be involved in the decision to 
transition an individual element of the BMDS to deployment as a 
military capability for the fighting forces. A recommendation from the 
Director, MDA, that the BMDS or a BMDS element should be considered for 
transition to production would be approved by the Senior Executive 
Council (SEC), which includes the Service Secretaries. Upon SEC 
approval, USD (AT&L) will establish necessary product teams to support 
a Milestone C decision after receiving advice from the Defense 
Acquisition Board (DAB). Following this decision, a capability-based 
ORD will be produced and approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight 
Council (JROC). Legacy processes of DOD acquisition regulations, with 
full Service involvement, would be fully implemented at this point.
                       federal acquisition system
    Question. The role of the federal acquisition system is to guide 
programs through stages of development with reporting requirements 
which allow senior leaders to evaluate system capability, performance, 
cost and schedule. Now that the Department has exempted the missile 
defense programs from the federal acquisition system, how will the 
Department ensure adequate review is provided in the development of 
missile defense programs? What reporting requirements and measures of 
effectiveness will missile defense programs have to provide during 
their development to allow for review of their progress? How will these 
reporting requirements determine if the programs are running at high 
cost or behind schedule? How will the reporting requirements judge the 
trade off of additional development risk for additional performance or 
additional cost? What reporting requirements will be used to determine 
if a missile defense program should be accelerated, decelerated, 
modified, or terminated?
    Answer. On January 2nd of this year, the Secretary of Defense 
redesignated the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization as the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) and changed the responsibilities and authorities 
of the Director. The Secretary gave the Agency new priorities and 
direction, and expanded responsibilities and authority to execute the 
missile defense program. The Secretary has set up a formal oversight 
process for the missile defense program. The Director, MDA, will report 
directly to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics). The Senior Executive Council, or SEC, chaired by myself, 
provides executive oversight of the program. Permanent members are the 
Service Secretaries and the Under Secretary (AT&L). Other Department 
officials will be included as needed, depending on the subject at hand.
    The SEC conducts periodic formal and informal reviews of the 
program. The SEC has met six times since last summer to review the 
Ballistic Missile Defense program. Reviews include such topics as 
program plans, management approaches, test performance, system 
architecture, technological alternatives, basing options, and threat. 
The SEC provides guidance regarding policy, planning, and programming; 
makes the decisions as to whether to stop, start, slow, or accelerate 
efforts; and approves recommendations on fielding elements of the 
system. This group demands high standards of accountability.
    Additionally, the Department has created a new, standing Missile 
Defense Support Group (MDSG), the Chairman of which reports directly to 
the Under Secretary (AT&L). The MDSG provides advice both to the Under 
Secretary and Director, MDA, as well as input to the SEC. It performs 
independent assessments, and is supported, in turn, by a working group. 
The members of the MDSG are all senior department officials, and 
experienced in missile defense. These changes provide more direct and 
focused executive oversight and reporting than that provided under the 
former approach. It will enable the Department to respond more rapidly 
to emerging events. They provide for more internal accountability at a 
more rapid pace than we have had in the past.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                              shipbuilding
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, as you know, I have been concerned 
about the low rate of shipbuilding. I am not only troubled with the 
size of the Fleet but also about the industrial base. I am pleased to 
see you have recognized that the shipbuilding rate needs to be higher 
than the current rate of five ships, however, your current projections 
show construction of only five to seven hulls over the next four years 
while accelerating ship inactivation's. How do you plan to ensure the 
Fleet is sufficiently sized to fully support a forward-deployed, 
combat-credible posture while maintaining an operational tempo that 
supports Quality of Life and retention efforts?
    Answer. The request for five ships in fiscal year 2003 and 34 ships 
across the FYDP provides the best balance between the Department's 
competing requirements and available resources. While the Department 
recognizes that the build rate of five ships in fiscal year 2003 and 
approximately 7 ships per year across the FYDP is insufficient to 
sustain the current fleet size over the long term, we are making 
substantial investments now in programs such as CVN(X) and DD(X), as 
well as SSBN conversions to cruise missile carrying submarines (SSGN) 
that represent the bridge to the transformed Naval Forces of the 
future.
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, I understand that Navy priorities 
for accelerating procurement of additional ships, if funds were 
available, would first be a DDG-51 and then an LPD-17. If additional 
funds were available, do you support these priorities?
    Answer. The Department is currently reviewing ship requirements for 
the future fleet. The Navy is participating in the review, and if 
additional funds were available for accelerating ship procurement, the 
Department would review the latest information from the ongoing review 
and determine the shipbuilding priorities at that time. Both the DDG-51 
and LPD-17 programs could be accelerated if additional funding were 
available. However, the current budget request meets the current 
requirements for the Navy.
                 marine expeditionary brigade vehicles
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, I understand that the current 
amphibious lift capacity for Marine Expeditionary Brigade vehicles will 
support only 2.1 brigades. How do you plan to meet the current and 
future brigade lift requirements given that the average age of almost 
half of your amphibious Fleet is over 30 years old?
    Answer. Both the Secretary of the Navy and the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps have recognized the Marine Corps' fiscally unconstrained 
requirement to simultaneously lift the assault echelons of three Marine 
Expeditionary Brigades (MEB AE). There are no current plans to satisfy 
this unconstrained requirement.
    Current ship building plans require keeping amphibious ships well 
past their Expected Service Lives (ESLs). Many vessels with planned 
replacement will have to serve approximately a decade beyond their 
intended life expectancy. Once the final LPD-17 is delivered, around 
2015, amphibious lift capacity will achieve 83 percent of the 3.0 MEB 
AE lift required for one Major Theater War. The LPD-17 class ship will 
provide greater amphibious lift capabilities as they replace four 
classes of older ships, including the aging LPD-4 AUSTIN class ships 
that are now in service. For comparison purposes, the vehicle capacity 
of an LPD-4 class ship is 11,800 square feet and for the LPD-17 class 
ship it is 24,600 square feet.
    The second element of the future lift capability involves the 
replacement of the LHA class of amphibious assault ships. The LHA 
Replacement Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) is expected to be released 
in June 2002.
    To help correct the near-term vehicle lift shortfall, the Navy 
created the Amphibious Lift Enhancement Plan (ALEP) which has 5 
decommissioned LKAs and 4 decommissioned LSTs in Mobilization Category 
B. As part of a major wartime mobilization, these vessels would take 
approximately 180 days to return to service. While their capabilities 
are not compatible with today's operational concepts, they could 
provide the additional vehicle square.
    One note regarding the recent use of high speed ferries as 
transportation assets.: while useful in an intratheater logistics role, 
they are not acceptable substitutes for lifting elements of an Assault 
Echelon into a combat environment lack both the survivability and 
sustainment to steam with an Amphibious Task Force and deliver an 
assault echelon in a hostile environment.
                             dd(x) program
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, could you provide an update on how 
the DD(X) program is progressing? Do you believe that down select for 
design will remain on schedule for April of this year?
    Answer. The Navy cancelled the DD-21 Phase III Request for Proposal 
(RFP) on 30 November 2001 and issued a new Phase III solicitation based 
on the DD(X) strategy. The award of that Phase III contract will 
represent the down select to one team led by a shipbuilder which will 
become the design agent and technology developer for DD(X). Both of the 
industry teams competing to design DD(X)--the Blue Team, led by Bath 
Iron Works with Lockheed Martin Corporation as the systems integrator, 
and the Gold Team, led by Ingalls Shipbuilding Inc. with Raytheon 
Systems Co. as the systems integrator--responded with proposals in 
February 2002.
    The Navy is scheduled to award a best value contract in April 2002.
               reductions in funding for training rockets
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, I am concerned with the Department's 
decision to slash funding for the Hydra-70 rocket system in fiscal year 
2003 by nearly 85 percent, at a time when our nation's front line 
forces are deployed with these systems in Afghanistan and other 
countries. This seems to be inconsistent with the direction provided by 
this committee last year and this could put combat readiness at risk.
    How does the Department plan to maintain the combat proficiency of 
aviators with such dramatic reductions in the procurement of training 
rockets?
    Answer. The Army has made a tough choice to move the military 
toward transformation. This is a clear example of where the Department 
of Defense has decided to move forward and accept risk by reducing the 
amount of Hydra-70 rockets procured and move toward rocket technology 
that will give the war fighter a low cost precision engagement 
capability far greater than he possesses today. To mitigate the near 
term readiness risk, Army anticipates no change to current training 
strategies for the next two years. As part of its continuing and 
ongoing review process, the Army staff is reassessing rocket 
strategies.
                 recapitalization of aging war reserve
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, how will the Department address the 
recapitalization of the 2.75-inch war reserve that is aging and less 
capable than the current production configuration, and incapable of 
being deployed on Naval aircraft carriers because of safety issues?
    Answer. The Department is recapitalizing a limited number of 
unserviceable 2.75-inch war reserve rockets, by refurbishment. The 
upgrades result in these items being reclassified as Combat Useable 
Assets and address safety issues. As a parallel effort, the Department 
is also engaged in modernizing this weapon to address the need for 
increased precision capability and to satisfy insensitive munitions 
requirements. Items remaining in war reserve will continue to be 
screened for component re-use and for use in training.
                         future cost increases
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, how will the Department mitigate the 
future cost increases to the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps users 
that rely on the Army as the Single Manager for procurement of this 
vital weapon system?
    Answer. The Department is conducting a study of the 2.75-inch 
rocket industrial base which will determine cost drivers that influence 
rocket procurement prices. The project manager will work closely with 
industry to develop and implement solutions to minimize cost increases 
to the other services.
                               sbirs-low
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, the following statements have been 
issued by administration officials in recent months:
    The Statement of Administration Policy on the fiscal year 2002 
Defense Appropriations Bill, issued on November 28th of last year, 
declared that ``The President is committed to the development and 
deployment of effective missile defenses to protect the United States, 
our forces, and our friends and allies as soon as possible.''
    In a letter to the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee dated 
November 14, 2001, Secretary Rumsfeld stated that a key element of the 
Administration's national security strategy was ``the intention to 
develop and deploy limited defenses against ballistic missiles as soon 
as technologically possible.''
    In a letter to Senator Kyl dated November 27, 2001, the President's 
National Security Adviser stated that SBIRS-Low ``is a critical part of 
this Administration's missile defense program.''
    Do these statements still reflect the views of the Administration 
and the Defense Department?
    If not, please explain what has changed.
    Answer. SBIRS Low is a critical component of the Ballistic Missile 
Defense System (BMDS).
    Question. If all those statements still hold, the Defense 
Department's actions with respect to SBIRS-Low are puzzling. According 
to information provided by Defense Department officials, both program 
contractors are currently on schedule and within budget. Yet DOD has 
slipped the program two years in anticipation of delays that might 
occur in the future, and removed substantial funding over the Future 
Years Defense Plan. How does delaying a critical element of the missile 
defense program because of possible future problems promote the 
deployment of effective missile defenses as soon as technologically 
possible?
    Answer. The prior plan for SBIRS Low was based on a stressing 
requirement set tailored for difficult, sophisticated threats. The 
probability of achieving the first launch of the complex satellite on 
schedule was considered low. The program was restructured to create a 
more realistic schedule. Part of the SBIRS restructure is converting 
the program to a spiral development, capability-based approach. The 
initial satellites will support the BMDS Test Bed. These first 
satellites may have less capability and therefore lower schedule and 
technical risk of achieving launch. Subsequent satellites will have 
greater capability as technology matures. This will allow early 
contingency operations and increasing capability thereafter. Lessons 
learned from the initial satellite operations will feed back to later 
satellites, increasing their capability and lowering their schedule and 
technical risks.
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, there is always some risk a program 
won't complete its work in the time desired--schedule risk--and there's 
some risk that a program won't achieve all its technical goals--
technical risk. Can you please explain how reducing funding for SBIRS-
Low by approximately $1.5 billion over the Future Years Defense Plan 
reduces either of those risks? Doesn't a funding reduction increase 
those risks?
    Answer. The prior plan for SBIRS Low was based on a stressing 
requirement set tailored for difficult, sophisticated threats. The 
probability of achieving the first launch of the complex satellite on 
schedule was considered low. The program is being restructured to 
create a more realistic schedule. Part of the SBIRS restructure is 
converting the program to a spiral development, capability-based 
approach. The initial satellites will support the BMDS Test Bed. These 
first satellites may have less capability and therefore lower schedule 
and technical risk of achieving launch. Subsequent satellites will have 
greater capability as and technology matures. This will allow early 
contingency operations and increasing capability thereafter. Lessons 
will be learned from the initial satellite operations that will feed 
back to later satellites, increasing their capability and lowering 
their schedule and technical risks.
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, there has been some suggestion that 
SBIRS-Low would be unnecessary if a series of large, land-based X-band 
radars could be placed at various locations around the world. Doesn't 
such an approach have serious drawbacks in terms of the political 
difficulties of securing and maintaining basing rights--especially in 
the face of possible regime changes--as well as significant challenges 
in protecting those bases from attack?
    Answer. That is correct. A space-based sensor constellation 
provides the opportunity to view missiles launched anywhere on the 
globe, aimed at any point, reducing the dependency on foreign basing, 
reducing the vulnerability to direct attack and, mitigating the 
geographic viewing limitations of surface-based radars. That is 
precisely why the SBIRS Low capability is key to an effective, reliable 
sensor suite. In addition, a balanced infrared and radar sensor suite 
ensures that no single countermeasure is able to negate our sensor 
capability. Complementary sensors based on different methodologies 
(i.e., radar and infrared) create a capability that is highly effective 
against a wide variety of countermeasures.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
                   military commission procedures act
    Question. I have introduced along with Senator Durbin the Military 
Commission Procedures Act, S. 1937. Have you had the chance to review 
the bill and do you have any comments? Can you comment on the status of 
the procedures for the military commissions being prepared by DOD and 
do you know of any plans to conduct such commissions in the foreseeable 
future?
    Answer. Before Secretary Rumsfeld publicly announced the military 
commission procedures on March 21, 2002, DOD gave careful consideration 
to all inputs provided by Congress, including S. 1937, S. 1941 (a 
separate draft bill sponsored by Senator Leahy), and the views of other 
Senators and Congressmen. The result of this critical deliberation is a 
set of procedures that we believe is fair, balanced, and just.
    A comparison of DOD's military commission procedures with S. 1937 
reveals more commonalities than differences. Both provide that the 
accused is presumed innocent, that he is not required to testify, that 
he may obtain witnesses and documents to use in his own defense, that 
the standard of guilt is proof ``beyond a reasonable doubt,'' and that 
a unanimous vote is required to impose the death penalty. Although 
there are some differences concerning composition, certain trial 
procedures, handling of classified information, and appeals, DOD's 
procedures taken as a whole are entirely appropriate to the unique 
circumstances of the war against terrorism and comply with the 
President's directive to provide each accused with a full and fair'' 
trial. While we appreciate the thought and effort that went into 
drafting the legislation, we do not believe any additional legislation 
in this area is necessary or appropriate.
    There is no timeline in place for trials. The President has not 
designated anyone for trial before a military commission, and law 
enforcement intelligence, and military personnel continue to conduct 
their respective investigations.
                           major theater wars
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, prior to September 11th, persistent 
funding shortfalls, compounded with expanding requirements and record 
high operational tempo, had resulted in significant risk in executing 
the national military strategy of fighting two nearly simultaneous 
major theater wars. Now our country faces just that scenario should we 
choose to escalate our activities in Iraq? Does the increase in the 
proposed fiscal year 2003 budget eliminate this risk?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2003 budget contributes significantly to 
improving the health of the Department and its ability to execute the 
Nation's defense strategy. The fiscal year 2003 budget balances funding 
that contributes to near-term readiness--and our ability to fight two 
overlapping wars--with funding that begins transforming our Armed 
Forces. I am confident of our ability to execute the strategy, and this 
budget will only improve our posture in that regard.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                            directed energy
    Question. As you know, our National Laboratories, particularly 
those in New Mexico, as well as our military research labs, have made 
tremendous advances in directed energy and in particular, in laser 
development. Both Kirtland Air Force Base and White Sands Missile Range 
in my home state have been at the forefront of many of these 
breakthroughs and continue to develop these technologies for military 
applications that can drastically reduce collateral damage on the 
battlefield.
    Does the Administration envision directed energy technologies as 
ranking prominently in the transformation capabilities of our military 
forces, and do our military labs and testing grounds currently have the 
resources to adequately accommodate such an expanded mission?
    Answer. Directed Energy provides the Department of Defense with 
unique opportunities to augment and improve its operational 
capabilities and tactics as we work to transform our military forces 
and continue to deal with the complex national security environment 
currently unfolding. The Services all have implemented energy programs 
and recognize that the potential for speed-of-light long-standoff-range 
engagements, unique damage mechanisms, greatly enhanced multi-target 
engagement, and deep magazines are desirable attributes for a 21st-
century arsenal. Directed energy technologies have matured to the point 
where it is feasible, over the next two decades, to include systems on 
aircraft, space vehicles, ships, and ground vehicles. The remaining 
science and technology challenges include work on power generation and 
storage, power conditioning and component development, thermal 
management, weapons effects, high power microwave pulse forming 
technology, a verity of laser sources and beam control, and atmospheric 
understanding and compensation. There are continuing engineering 
challenges to improve reliability and reduce the cost and size of 
directed energy systems.
    Current directed energy programs supported by the military include 
the airborne laser acquisition program, the airborne tactical laser and 
area denial system Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations, 
technology oriented space based and ground based laser thrusts, and the 
new starts in the areas of mobile tactical high energy laser and free 
electron laser. Although the engineering and technology challenges for 
directed energy systems are formidable, we consider these programs and 
related enabling technology programs to be adequately funded to meet 
validated DOD mission requirements. We, of course, are continuing to 
review the potential of directed energy systems and to maintain the 
necessary flexibility to exploit technology opportunities that may 
arise from current research.
                        critical infrastructure
    Question. One of the issues I have worked very hard on is that of 
addressing the non-traditional asymmetrical threats, such as chemical, 
biological, nuclear, and even cyber attacks. We now know these are a 
very real challenge, not only to our assets around the world, but also 
to our own critical infrastructures here in the United States. Our 
national laboratories in New Mexico have significant experience and 
know-how in the field of computer modeling that can be applied to risk 
assessments of our critical infrastructures.
    Please describe how RDT&E funding is being directed in this budget 
to meet these challenges, and how the notion of transformation plays 
into this effort.
    Answer. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency's (DTRA) RDT&E funding 
is being directed to develop the National Infrastructure Simulation and 
Analysis Center (NISAC). Further, DTRA RDT&E funding continues to 
support the Mission Degradation Analysis (MIDAS) program. NISAC is an 
effort to develop architecture to simulate and analyze the nation's 
civilian infrastructures. NISAC will leverage Sandia National 
Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory modeling and simulation 
expertise. The NISAC will provide an enabling capability to help 
national, state and local leaders deal with protecting the nation's 
critical infrastructures. In fiscal year 2002, the NISAC effort was 
funded at $20 million. The MIDAS program, started in December 2000, is 
a research and development effort to develop methodologies and 
automated tools to enable an integrated assessment of the degradation 
of critical infrastructures upon selected DOD missions and functions. 
The MIDAS effort was funded at $2.7 million for fiscal year 2002. While 
NISAC is a national-level initiative, MIDAS focuses on the DOD. MIDAS 
is also developing methodologies to enable the assessment of future 
infrastructures to integrate protection as these future infrastructures 
are created. Both efforts will provide capabilities for risk 
assessments: NISAC at the national level and MIDAS at the DOD level. 
These two separate, but related, efforts will help the nation to 
understand, analyze and protect critical infrastructures to ensure 
continuity of government and DOD mission accomplishment. With this 
insight into the infrastructure, we will be better positioned to shape 
changes to our infrastructure to support increased homeland security in 
the face of our war on terrorism.
    Question. In addition, what role do you envision for both Los 
Alamos and Sandia National laboratories as we continue in the war 
against terrorism?
    Answer. Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) and Los Alamos National 
Laboratory (LANL) will play a vital role in the war against terrorism 
via the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center. SNL and 
LANL have expertise in modeling and simulation which will couple with 
their high performance computing capability. SNL and LANL have already 
completed some of the building blocks of creating models for specific 
pieces of our nation's extremely complex infrastructure. The existing 
capabilities and initial infrastructure modeling efforts will build 
upon each other to enable a growing understanding of the operation of 
the nation's infrastructure and the interdependencies among the 
infrastructures. SNL's and LANL's participation will facilitate the 
proper protection of the nation's infrastructure.
                                 milcon
    Question. It is my understanding that DOD has made the decision to 
postpone significant investment in military construction to align with 
the delay in BRAC. However, there are a number of bases throughout the 
country, including four in my state, that are so unique in their 
missions, and so vital to our national security, that in order to 
maintain their maximum level of operation, they will require capital 
improvements before 2005. Many of these bases already have significant 
milcon backlogs and further delaying milcon investments will exacerbate 
this problem.
    This is also true for military housing on these bases. For example, 
the budget does not provide for military housing projects at Kirtland 
Air Force Base or White Sands Missile range. Ultimately, a lack of 
adequate housing reflects directly on the retention and morale of our 
military servicemen and women.
    Does the increase in out-year milcon funding take this growing 
backlog problem into full account, and can aging workplace facilities 
at bases like Kirtland Air Force Base and White Sands Missile Range be 
sustained in their current condition without significantly affecting 
operations?
    Answer. Yes, our military construction and Sustainment, Restoration 
and Modernization budget requests take the backlog problem into full 
account. The Defense Facilities Strategic Plan, published in August 
2001, defines our facilities vision for the future--healthy; productive 
installations and facilities that are available when and where needed 
with capabilities to support current and future military requirements. 
The first step in this is to sustain what we own. Our fiscal year 2003 
budget request of $5.6 billion increases sustainment funding to 93 
percent of the requirement, from 89 percent in last year's budget. Full 
funding of sustainment throughout the program is an appropriate 
investment that will avoid significant costs in the future by 
stabilizing facility conditions and preventing further erosion.
    Also, the Department is requesting $3.3 billion for 
recapitilization (including both operations and maintenance and 
military construction funds) to restore and modernize our facilities. 
Recapitilization is important not only to restore the readiness of poor 
facilities, but also to maintain the relevance of all facilities to 
future missions of the Department. A consistent modernization program 
tied to expected service life best accomplishes this. The Department 
stands by its goal of achieving a recapitilization rate of 67 years. We 
currently plan to achieve this goal by fiscal year 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
          Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
                           u.s.s. ``inchon''
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, in December of last year, the 
Pentagon publicly announced that it would retire the Navy's only mine 
warfare command ship, the U.S.S. Inchon, prior to the end of the fiscal 
year. A letter was sent to my office, a month later, informing me of 
the decision. Just last week, the Navy came by my office to brief me on 
the way ahead.
    The plan:
  --The Inchon is retired, and with it goes 25 percent of the uniformed 
        billets at Naval Station Ingleside.
  --The Navy will deploy, on a rotational basis, additional mine 
        warfare equipment on big-decked amphibious assault ships.
  --$53 million has been identified in the FYDP to study replacements.
  --New platforms may be procured by fiscal year 2007.
    This plan raises more questions than it answers.
    What impact will the retirement of the Inchon have on the Navy's 
mine-warfare capabilities?
    Answer. The near-term impact on dedicated Mine Countermeasures 
(MCM) capabilities has been minimal. Since fire damage in October 2001, 
Inchon has been precluded from operational tasking. Available large-
deck amphibious ships (LHA/LHD class) have been on call to provide the 
MCS deck of opportunity. The optimum long-term solution is the subject 
of an ongoing Navy study.
    Question. How suitable are large amphibious ships as substitutes?
    Answer. Large amphibious ships are possible substitutes for the 
Inchon because they can provide support for all three legs of the MCM 
triad, particularly MH-53E mine countermeasures aircraft. The large 
deck amphibious ships are capable of providing full support for this 
type of aircraft and related MCM equipment. In addition, large-deck 
amphibious ships also have a well deck--which Inchon did not--which can 
support, among other things, the Marine Mammal System.
    Question. What impact will this dual-hatting have on the Marine 
Corps ability to execute its missions?
    Answer. The Navy does not plan to deploy, on a rotational basis, 
additional mine warfare equipment on big-decked amphibious assault 
ships. The Navy's interim plan for a Mine Countermeasures Command and 
Control Ship (MCS) is to employ a host of shared usage, on-demand, 
multi-purpose ship platforms of opportunity, most preferably a big deck 
amphibious (L-class) ship with a ``Plug and Play'' mine warfare 
package. This package will include a temporary MCS deployable team that 
will provide the mine countermeasures (MCM) specific command and 
control and mission planning expertise that has previously been 
provided by the MCS. How ``dual hatting'' will impact USMC missions 
will depend on the situation facing the operational commander. In some 
scenarios Inchon would not have been available due to higher priority 
commitments, maintenance and training cycles, and excessive transit 
time to the theater of operation. As was then the plan and remains for 
the foreseeable future, operational commanders will task organize to 
utilize other MCM options including use of alternative platforms, shore 
basing and operational maneuver over and around mined waters. Where the 
operational commander chooses to exercise the traditional big deck 
amphibious ship MCS option, USMC operations may or may not be affected, 
depending upon the urgency of the amphibious assault, availability of 
alternative deck space on other amphibs, and difficulty of the MCM 
operation. In a worst-case scenario, some combination of Marines and 
their equipment will be off-loaded at an appropriate support base until 
the mine threat is neutralized or alternative lift becomes available.
    Question. Perhaps most importantly, what will become of Ingleside? 
What new missions will the Navy establish at Ingleside to offset the 
projected loss of jobs?
    Answer. Naval Station Ingleside is a viable installation that is 
home to the Navy's Center of Excellence for Mine Warfare. This base is 
homeport for 21 MCM and MHC Class ships, provides facilities to Mine 
Warfare Training Center and is the future home of Commander Mine 
Warfare Command.
    There are numerous transformational initiatives and systems, which 
might be suited for assignment to Naval Station Ingleside. The Navy is 
studying options to replace the dedicated MCS functions that U.S.S. 
Inchon performed. This MCM initiative, coupled with future initiatives 
and requirements, should be considered for location at Ingleside, 
Texas.
                             transformation
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, while I am encouraged that the 
budget submission includes increases for transformational initiatives 
such as the procurement of additional unmanned aerial vehicles and 
extra research dollars for space-based radars, I was surprised by the 
modest goal you endorsed during a public appearance last week.
    In a speech before the American Institute of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics, you indicated that it would be unreasonable to expect 
more that 10 percent of the military to be transformed before the end 
of the decade. This plan raises more questions than it answers.
    Hasn't the impressive performance of many of our systems in the 
current war on terrorism encouraged you to proceed at a more ambitious 
pace?
    Answer. The performance of our forces in the current war on 
terrorism has been most impressive. In fact the current war on 
terrorism underscores the fact that transformation is about much more 
than technology, systems, and programs--it is about transforming how we 
think, how we lead, how we train, how we exercise, and how we fight. 
Transforming 10 percent of the force over the course of a decade can 
make a dramatic difference in the capabilities of the entire force. In 
one of the famous historical examples of transformation--the 
development and combination of armored warfare, air warfare, and 
tactical radio communications by the Germans during the period between 
the two World Wars--10 percent is roughly the percentage of the German 
army that had been transformed to effect blitzkrieg in 1939 and 1941.
    Our expectations for transformation are indeed ambitious. We are 
examining activities that will create and anticipate the future. We 
expect to co-evolve concepts, processes, organizations, and 
technologies to produce new sources of military power. Our approach to 
transformation is grounded in the Information Age and represents a 
continuous process that fosters a culture of innovation to produce 
dramatically improved future capabilities. Transformation is not an 
end-state, nor strictly a synonym for modernization. We intend to 
expand the boundaries of existing competencies and develop new 
competitive areas. During our ongoing dialog and as we deal with the 
near term issues, it will be important that we also take the long view. 
There is no near term destination for transformation. This is an area, 
for example, that will be difficult to put on a budget cycle. But as we 
move forward it will be important for us to identify those few lead 
elements which have the potential for changing our current operational 
concepts and the way the force operates.
                           vaccine production
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, I am discouraged that the budget 
submission does not include any funds for the Department to pursue an 
organic vaccine production capability.
    The Congress was expecting that the fiscal year 2003 submission 
would contain the down payment for a government-owned, contractor-
operated (GOCO) vaccine production facility. Site selection was 
supposed to be conducted this December. This facility is needed to 
produce small quantities of vaccines to combat the exotic pathogens 
that appear on the Department's ``Validated Threat List''--vaccines for 
which there is no national demand or commercial market.
    Now I understand that the Department has abdicated its 
responsibility, hoping that HHS will foot the bill for the project. 
While I concede that the Department of Health and Human Services may be 
the ideal agency to take the lead on vaccines to be procured in 
quantities sufficient to inoculate the entire population, such as Small 
Pox, the Pentagon's requirements are very unique, and do not overlap 
with HHS's public health mission.
    Why has the Department backed away from pursuing an in-house 
solution to the unique threats that face our men and women in uniform?
    Answer. DOD is not in favor of building new infrastructure unless 
it can be determined that industry cannot meet DOD needs for production 
of vaccines to protect U.S. Service members. Whereas in the past there 
was limited industry interest, the events following September 11, 2001 
have indicated an industry desire to assist DOD with its vaccine 
production needs. Over the past year, interagency DOD/HHS meetings, 
including representation from other interested Executive Branch 
agencies, have focused on vaccine acquisition for the nation and 
military force protection primarily focused on bioterrorism threat 
agents. The DOD and HHS continue to have discussions with leaders in 
the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry to evaluate whether 
industry can meet our needs and to gain their views as to how actual or 
apparent barriers can be overcome so industry will readily participate 
in research, development and acquisition. To pursue a DOD only vaccine 
production facility at this time would be premature and could lead to 
duplication of infrastructure investment.
    Question. What leads you to believe that HHS will be willing to pay 
for a facility whose laboratory space would be dominated by the 
production of DOD-specific vaccines?
    Answer. DOD and HHS are continuing to work together identifying 
requirements for vaccines that address unique military requirements and 
the larger need for public health vaccines. Each Department will need 
to identify resources necessary to meet their needs. If a dedicated 
facility is needed to meet national requirements, we expect multiple 
agencies will share the cost to construct and operate such a facility.
                         military construction
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, I am particularly troubled by the 
Administration's decision to defer, potentially, hundreds of military 
construction projects. The publicly stated rationale--a desire not to 
construct new facilities at bases that may soon be closed--is 
unsatisfactory. Are we to assume that the projects included in the 
budget are for facilities that the Pentagon has already determined will 
not be closed?
    Answer. No. The Department has made no determination of which bases 
will or will not be closed. The projects included in the budget reflect 
the Services' priorities for the current inventory and mission 
requirements within fiscal and planning guidance provided by the 
Secretary.
    Question. How can you justify enormous MilCon increases for Germany 
and Korea at the expense of domestic projects? After all, Fort Hood is 
home to more service members than all of South Korea.
    Answer. Our service men and women stationed overseas deserve the 
same quality of life as our service men and women stationed in the 
United States. Moreover, the facilities overseas are usually in much 
worse condition than those in the United States. For instance, 83 
percent of the Army facilities overseas are rated C3/C4, whereas the 
Army rates 78 percent of their worldwide facilities as C3/C4. The Air 
Force rates 82 percent of their overseas facilities as C3/C4 whereas 
they rate 63 percent of their worldwide facilities as C3/C4.
                    expansion of role in afghanistan
    Question. Secretary Wolfowitz, the press has recently reported that 
the United States military would soon assume the responsibility of 
training Afghanistan's new Army. Please describe exactly what that will 
entail?
    Answer. President Bush announced on January 28 that the United 
States will assume responsibility for establishing and training the 
Afghan National Army. On 18-23 February, Major General Charles 
Campbell, Chief of Staff, U.S. Central Command, led an assessment team 
to Kabul to develop a plan for training the Afghan National Army. The 
team achieved basic consensus with the Afghan Interim Authority's 
Ministry of Defense to begin a 12-week training course for the first 
few multiethnic light infantry and border guard battalions as early as 
May 2002. The Secretary of Defense has approved initiating this 
training.
    U.S. Central Command will train Afghan National Army leaders and 
trainers concurrently with Afghan National Army battalion training. 
Every fourth and fifth battalion trained will be a border force 
battalion. U.S. Central Command trainers will come from Special Forces 
units.
    U.S. Central Command's assessment team projected that United 
States-led training would take approximately 18 months, after which 
Afghan National Army trainers or contractors will be able to take over 
most training.
    Question. What role will our coalition allies play in the training 
mission?
    Answer. At the April 3 conference in Geneva on Afghan security 
issues, we welcomed international contributions to this training 
effort, and are speaking with other countries to encourage their 
participation, under U.S. leadership, by contributing training, 
equipment, or cash. Furthermore, at present there are no international 
mechanisms for funding or paying salaries of the Afghan National Army. 
The United Nations intends to develop a trust fund to manage 
international contributions to Afghan military expenses and salaries. 
The State Department has requested $20 million in its fiscal year 2002 
supplemental that could be used to pay Afghan military salaries. 
Representatives from the State Department and Defense Department 
discussed these topics with other countries at Geneva. Based on the 
Geneva meeting and other discussions, we will compile countries' offers 
and pass them to the Afghan government, which will be responsible for 
accepting or rejecting them.
    Question. Do you anticipate needing to provide surplus materials to 
equip this new Army?
    Answer. Possibly. The State Department's supplemental request 
includes a request for funds to help train and equip the Afghan 
National Army. We expect that State's supplemental request will cover 
the bulk of the U.S. Government's training and equipment contribution. 
Meanwhile, we are examining options for providing the Afghan National 
Army with equipment and materials from DOD and other countries, so that 
Afghan National Army training can begin as soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted to Dr. Dov Zakheim
            Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
             other miscellaneous military personnel issues
    Question. Dr. Zakheim, last year, this Committee was concerned with 
excess Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves and, in particular, its 
impact on retention. The fiscal year 2003 budget request increases PCS 
moves by $400 million. Why are your requesting this increase and 
specifically how many more moves does this request support?
    Answer. The PCS increase for fiscal year 2003 is $349.6 million 
producing 28,864 additional moves.
    The fiscal year 2002 President's Amended Budget request reflected a 
requirement for 715,170 moves. When the Congress reduced funding by 
$180 million for the program in January 2002, the Services were 
compelled to reduce the number of planned moves by 17,716, creating a 
bow-wave of moves in fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 2003 President's 
Budget reflects a program of 726,318 moves, of which 433,317 are 
mandatory accession and separation moves, corresponding to increases in 
anticipated accessions and separations. Of the program increase of 
28,864 moves, 5,557 are due to increased accession and separation 
requirements.
    There are 293,000 operational, training, rotational and unit moves 
budgeted in fiscal year 2003. These moves are required to ensure 
overseas stationing commitments, to facilitate force rotation policies, 
and to maintain requisite levels of training, force readiness, quality 
of life, and unit integrity. Of the program increase of 23,307 
operational, training, rotational and unit moves, most can be 
attributed to bow-waved move requirements deferred from fiscal year 
2002 due to the congressional reduction.
    The Congress expressed concern that military members moved too 
frequently and stated that since the PCS program funded more than 
715,000 moves, 52 percent of the force would move during the year. This 
analysis failed to exclude mandatory accession and separation moves. 
When these moves are excluded, a similar analysis shows that only 30 
percent of the force are expected to move within the year--consistent 
with a 3+ year rotation cycle.
    The fiscal year 2003 program of 726,318 moves is lower then the 
number of moves expected in fiscal year 2001 (728,408) and represents 
the minimum program requirement for fiscal year 2003.
    Question. Last week USA Today (``E-mails detail Indiana Guard 
`ghosts','' February 20, 2002) reported that National Guard units 
across the country are reporting false, inflated numbers of troops to 
protect their funding and, in one instance, to prevent a battalion from 
failing a readiness report. What steps is the Department taking to 
investigate these allegations?
    Answer. The Department was working closely with the U.S. General 
Accounting Office (GAO) months before the series of USA Today articles 
appeared, to produce a systematic and accurate comparison of Army Guard 
strength and pay information for review and to initiate any needed 
corrective measures. These efforts are continuing. Articles in the USA 
Today on ``ghosting'' soldiers--delaying removal transactions to 
inflate State Guard or unit strength--appear to be based principally on 
anecdotal information from interviews with Guardsmen and former 
Guardsmen. The Department prefers to base its conclusions on actual 
data. The most recent data indicates a 97 percent participation rate 
throughout the Army National Guard with only a 3 percent non-
participation rate. This is consistent with the latest GAO information 
and with a current Army National Guard Non-Participation Summary 
Report. The National Guard's current objective is a 98 percent 
participation rate.
    We have also examined the potential readiness impact of non-
participating soldiers. Even if up to 3 percent of Army National Guard 
soldiers were listed as non-participants, this would have limited 
impact on readiness reports for two reasons. First, because P-level 
(personnel) threshold bands in the SORTS rating system are separated by 
margins of about 10 percent, 3 percent (or less) over-reporting of 
assigned strength has little impact. More significantly, unit 
commanders have regulatory authority to subjectively upgrade or 
downgrade, if in their opinion the change more accurately portrays the 
actual readiness of the unit. This has far more impact on the overall 
readiness report than a 3 percent shift in assigned strength.
    There are both acceptable (e.g., medical convalescence) and 
unacceptable (e.g., unexcused absence) reasons for non-participation. 
In reviewing non-participation in the National Guard, we have found 
some delays in the process for establishing a pay record for new 
accessions and Guard members moving from active duty back to a drilling 
status, along with processing delays for members being discharged or 
transferred from the National Guard. To address these and any related 
strength accounting problems, a standing DOD working group has 
developed an action plan that is now being implemented. The plan 
involves further evaluation and analysis of non-pay record files and 
reconciliation of pay and personnel records by all Reserve components. 
The goal is to improve the timeliness in processing personnel 
transactions and the accuracy of personnel and strength accounting.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                               sbirs-low
    Question. Dr. Zakheim, several times over the past decade, a unique 
requirement for forward staging platforms supporting Special Operations 
and Expeditionary Forces was demonstrated. Lacking a platform to 
perform this function, an Aircraft Carrier has been taken out of the 
normal deployment schedule, with its jets replaced by ground forces and 
helicopters. Removing an Aircraft Carrier from the normal deployment 
schedule causes increased stress on an already strained Fleet. This 
requirement for Special Operations and Expeditionary Forces carries 
growing significance in light of the war on terrorism. To alleviate 
disruption to the Carrier deployment schedule and to better meet this 
emergent need, have you considered the procurement of a LHD or a 
modified LHD amphibious ship to meet this requirement?
    Answer. We are actively considering and assessing the merit of an 
``LHD-plus'' alternative (a longer and wider LHD with increased 
survivability) as part of the ongoing Amphibious Assault Ship 
Replacement (LHA(R)) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). The AoA is 
scheduled to be completed by July 2002. Additionally, we have recently 
funded a Military Sealift Command study to examine short-term 
alternatives for an afloat forward staging base. Both of these efforts 
are focused on finding better ways to conduct these types of 
operations.
    Question. Dr. Zakheim, are the current SBIRS-Low contractors 
meeting their contractual requirements? That is, are they doing the 
work required, in the time allotted, and for the price agreed to?
    Answer. The SBIRS Low contractors are meeting their current 
contractual requirements, but it is important to note that this program 
is in the early stages of development and this program is linked to the 
ground control system and SBIRS High segments which are not meeting 
their requirements.
    Question. If that is the case, what is the basis for public 
statements by the Defense Department Comptroller that the SBIRS-Low 
program is ``not meeting hurdles?''
    Answer. It is important to understand that both SBIRS High and 
SBIRS Low are a family of systems that are coupled by a common ground 
control system. The program is designed to be fielded in a series of 
increments. Increment I is the ground station upgrade, Increment II is 
fielding SBIRS High and Increment III is fielding of SBIRS Low. The 
technical hurdles are in Increments I and II. The Department slipped 
fielding of those two increments so naturally the third increment had 
to slip as well.
                                 ______
                                 
             Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                          contractor personnel
    Question. Please provide the number of administrative and 
professional contractor personnel who are currently working along side 
government personnel inside the Pentagon of other DOD office buildings 
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of the 
Service Secretaries, the Office of the Chiefs-of-Staff, and the Joint 
Staff. Please provide the data by major staff within each office.
    Answer. The Department of Defense has no central repository of data 
on the number of contract workers employed by the Department working 
along side government personnel inside the Pentagon of other DOD office 
buildings within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of 
the Service Secretaries, the Office of the Chiefs-of-Staff, and the 
Joint Staff.
                                 ______
                                 
          Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
                            gulf war illness
    Question. Secretary Zakheim I am concerned that the proposed budget 
would slash Gulf War Illness research from $17.5 million to $5 million. 
This represents a 71 percent reduction.
    Given the recent advances in identifying the cause of this elusive 
illness, wouldn't now be the time to increase GWI research funding?
    Answer. Funding for GWI related research is budgeted in the Force 
Health Protection (FHP) program element (PE 0601105D8Z). The core 
fiscal year 2002 FHP budget was $26.4 million (before $10 million of 
congressional increases), while the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget 
request contains $10 million.
    As part of the budget formulation process, we must make difficult 
choices to achieve a balanced and affordable defense program. The 
fiscal year 2003 President's Budget Request represents a balanced 
program that supports research on many of the key technologies that 
will be necessary for the Department's objectives. However, we also 
need to ensure that the funding levels of the various components in the 
Department's total budget are balanced based on our assessment of the 
most urgent requirements.
                         military construction
    Question. Secretary Zakheim, Secretary Rumsfeld testified before 
the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month that the 
Department of Defense needed to fix the chronic under-funding of its 
infrastructure. He further stated that we must take care of the 
department's greatest asset: the men and women in uniform. Yet, the 
budget submitted actually cuts military construction by 14 percent in 
an effort to not spend money at bases that may be closed by the 
upcoming BRAC in 2005.
    How do you rationalize these positions? Do we really believe that 
the solution to fixing our infrastructure and taking care of our 
service members is to delay much needed military construction for three 
more years?
    Answer. In the context of competing priorities resulting from the 
events of September 11th, we have developed the fiscal year 2003 
Military Construction budget to support the President's and Secretary's 
aims with a balanced program to improve quality of life, enhance 
sustainment and modernization of existing facilities, and fund critical 
new construction.
    Although the fiscal year 2003 budget request is lower than last 
year's fiscal year 2002 request, in no way does it imply an easing of 
our commitment to revitalize DOD infrastructure. In fact, the $9 
billion request is the second largest request in the past six years. 
Additionally, the fiscal year 2003 column of the fiscal year 2002 
President's budget was only $7.4 billion. This year we raised the 
fiscal year 2003 level to $9 billion.
    This budget also places increased emphasis on sustaining and 
revitalizing the current inventory of facilities by increasing funds 
for Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization in the Operation and 
Maintenance appropriations by $500 million from last year's request. 
The fiscal year 2003 budget funds 93 percent of the Military Services' 
facilities sustainment requirement. That is up from 89 percent last 
year and significantly higher than in previous years, such as fiscal 
year 2000 when the Department met only 78 percent of the Services' 
facilities maintenance requirements.
    The President's fiscal year 2003 budget includes $4.2 billion to 
improve housing for military families, putting the Department on track 
to eliminate substandard housing by 2007, three years sooner than 
previously planned. This budget includes $227 million more than our 
fiscal year 2002 request to construct new housing and revitalize 
inadequate units. It also includes $195 million for housing 
privatization, to take advantage of the 8:1 leverage we have obtained 
on our investments in contracts awarded so far. At this rate, with our 
$195 million investment we should be able to obtain over $1.5 billion 
worth of quality privatized housing.
    This budget also includes $2.9 billion to operate and maintain 
fiscal year 2003 family housing inventory of 250,000 government-owned 
units and over 29,000 lease units. While the government-owned inventory 
declines by 25,000 units from fiscal year 2002 level due to 
privatization and demolition, we did not reduce the fiscal year 2003 
budget. Instead, we reapplied the freed-up funds to reduce the backlog 
of maintenance on units on hand.
    The fiscal year 2003 request also includes $1.2 billion to improve 
housing for our single soldiers; the $1.2 billion provides the same 
level of funding as in fiscal year 2002 and continues the Department's 
effort to provide private living space for all our unmarried military 
personnel (except those undergoing basic training).
    The budget also includes $.4 billion to improve medical and dental 
facilities, dependent schools, childcare centers and physical fitness 
facilities.
                               sbirs-low
    Question. Secretary Zakheim, I am troubled by the Administration's 
decision to delay the SBIRS-Low program by two years. If the decision 
to delay was made because the program is not meeting its technical 
goals, then the budget submission would mark the first time that this 
fact had been reported to the Congress. This is a critical program, one 
that may benefit our national security in many areas other than missile 
defense.
    What can the Department, and the Congress, do to speed the 
deployment of this system?
    Answer. We may fully decouple SBIRS Low from SBIRS High and convert 
the program to a spiral development, capability-based approach. Under 
this concept, the initial satellites will support the Ballistic Missile 
Defense System (BMDS) Test Bed. The first satellites may have less 
capability and therefore lower schedule and technical risk to achieving 
launch. Subsequent satellites will have greater capability as 
technology matures. This will allow early contingency operations and 
increasing capability thereafter. Lessons learned from the initial 
satellite operations will feed back to later satellites, increasing 
their capability.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Inouye. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 
March 6 when we will receive testimony on the Army's budget 
request. Thank you very much.
    [Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., Wednesday, February 27, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]




       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Inouye, Leahy, Dorgan, Stevens, Specter, 
Domenici, and Shelby.

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                         Department of the Army

STATEMENTS OF:
        HON. THOMAS E. WHITE, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
        GENERAL ERIC K. SHINSEKI, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

    Senator Inouye. Secretary White, General Shinseki, on 
behalf of this committee I would like to welcome you once again 
as we consider the fiscal year 2003 defense appropriation 
request of the Army. I need not tell you that much has changed 
since you last appeared before this committee. For one thing, 
we seem to be having extraordinary action in Afghanistan. In 
our Nation's global war on terrorism, Army soldiers have played 
many critical roles, securing airfields abroad, providing 
security along borders and at airports here at home, and 
responding to the many taskings of our Commander-in-Chief.
    I would also like to note the invaluable service provided 
to the Nation by the quiet professionals of the Army Special 
Forces. They have undertaken some of the most difficult 
missions known to soldiers, identifying targets, coordinating 
supporting arms for the Northern Alliance, and conducting 
battlefield diplomacy.
    Two weeks ago Vice Chairman Stevens and I had the chance to 
visit Central Asia. In Afghanistan and Uzbekhistan, we are 
again reminded of the high quality and commitment of all the 
volunteer forces. Our men and women in uniform were focused on 
the missions at hand and their morale was unbelievably 
excellent. This is a tribute to their commitment and to their 
small unit commanders on the ground.
    Secretary White and General Shinseki, there is much to 
praise, but there are also some questions to answer. 
Mobilization of the Army Reserve and Guard has reached 24,000 
soldiers. Our soldiers are now deployed to the Philippines. 
They are also in the former Soviet republics and they will soon 
be in Yemen. These commitments are in addition to our rotations 
into and out of Bosnia, Kosovo, the Sinai, and Saudi Arabia.
    How long will we continue these deployments and 
mobilizations? Do we have sufficient forces to meet these 
requirements? What will happen to the morale if we keep up this 
pace of overseas deployment?
    To help meet these demands and your other requirements, the 
President has requested $91 billion for the Army in fiscal year 
2003. This amount is $10 billion above your current budget. As 
you know, this subcommittee has taken the lead in supporting 
your transformation efforts. However, you must understand that 
such large appropriations will be scrutinized, and as such we 
will have many questions for you today.
    So we look forward to hearing how this request supports the 
Army's current and future missions. But first I would like to 
yield to my vice chairman, Senator Stevens.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

    Senator Stevens. Gentlemen, I just had the privilege of 
going over some photographs that the staff took on our trip to 
Afghanistan. I want to tell you, joining with the chairman, the 
forces we saw, as I told a group just earlier this week, know 
who they are, where they are from, and what they have to do, 
and they are really up. I have never seen such gung-ho guys in 
my life. Very, very, very purposeful visit as far as I am 
concerned.
    We have I think every reason to be absolutely proud of 
them, and I want to congratulate you both for the leadership of 
the Army that has got them where they are today. They are going 
to continue to make us proud over there, I am confident of 
that.
    I share the chairman's statement. I really hope that we can 
find some way to make sure that the Army's transformation 
continues on schedule and that you have everything you need 
during this period. I had problems to begin with about the 
Interim Combat System and the Future Combat Systems. I am sure 
we are all concentrating on the present combat system and 
making sure that it is not overlooked as we are going through 
this transformation.
    We want to keep up with what you are doing. The Crusader 
and Comanche, they are two systems that I feel very strongly 
about and I have supported. The increases this year are 
substantial and I would like to make certain in our hearing 
today that we could be assured of spending that money in the 
time frame that you have requested it for, because I do not 
want it to displace other items that would be equally 
advantageous to our people now and get ahead of ourselves and 
tying up budget authority that is not going to be spent in the 
next fiscal year, but would go on into the future years.
    I can tell you, the two of you have great support here in 
the Congress. You have been very wise, Mr. Secretary, in 
selecting Les Brownlee to be your Under Secretary, whoever did 
it. We have a team there with you that we all know and want to 
work with. Again, I just cannot tell you how proud I was and I 
think we all were to see our forces over there in Pakistan, 
Uzbekhistan, Afghanistan, and also in Belgium as we went over.
    That is a great team you have got over there and we look 
forward to working with you to support it.
    Thank you very much.
    Senator Inouye. Now may I call upon the Secretary.
    Mr. White. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Stevens, 
distinguished members of the committee. Good morning. General 
Shinseki and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 
representing the great young people that you just talked about, 
the soldiers of our Army.
    Mr. Chairman, we would ask your consent to make a brief 
opening statement and insert a joint written statement for the 
record.
    Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, may I interrupt. I just 
noticed my colleague here, if you do not mind. Senator Dorgan.
    Mr. White. Yes, sir.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

    Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I will put a statement in the 
record. I believe that what you and Senator Stevens have said 
is what I observed as well on a trip to Central Asia, 
Afghanistan, Uzbekhistan, and other countries. I have never 
seen such pride in a mission; soldiers, men and women, who are 
in harm's way, but who understand that what they are doing is 
critically important, not only to our country but to the world, 
in combatting terrorism. That says a lot about the leadership 
in the Army and in all of our services.
    I am particularly interested at some point about the value 
of the information you have received from Air Force assets, 
Global Hawk and the Predator. My understanding is that both of 
those assets have been enormously helpful to the Army. But I 
will not delay the Secretary, but let me just say to the 
Secretary and the General how much we appreciate their service 
and how much we appreciate the service of the men and women in 
the U.S. Army.
    Mr. White. Thank you.
    Senator Inouye. Please proceed.

                      STATEMENT OF SECRETARY WHITE

    Mr. White. I would like to begin this morning by 
highlighting three critical tasks that the Army must accomplish 
if we are to succeed in the joint service task of providing for 
the Nation's defense: First, we must help win the global war on 
terrorism; second, we must transform to meet the challenges of 
future conflicts; and third, we must secure the resources 
needed to pursue both the war on terror and Army 
transformation.
    Our first task is to help win the war on terrorism. Today 
more than 14,000 soldiers are deployed in U.S. Central 
Command's area of responsibility supporting Operation Enduring 
Freedom, from Egypt to Pakistan, from Kenya to Kazakhistan. 
Wherever they serve, our soldiers are nothing short of 
inspirational, as you noted in your opening remarks. They are 
accomplishing a complex and dangerous mission with 
extraordinary courage, skill, and determination. Some have been 
injured, others have given their lives. More will surely 
follow. Our Nation is forever indebted to them and their 
families for their sacrifice.
    As the war evolves, requirements for Army forces are 
growing, from assuring regional stability in Central Asia to 
stability and support operations in Afghanistan to securing 
detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to training counterterrorism 
forces in the Philippines and the former Soviet republic of 
Georgia. At the same time, the Army continues to deter 
potential adversaries in Southwest Asia, in Korea, while 
upholding U.S. security commitments, as you noted, in Bosnia, 
Kosovo, Macedonia, the Sinai, and elsewhere.
    In fact, the Army has over 138,000 soldiers and 38,000 
civilians deployed or forward stationed in 120 different 
countries. The Army also continues, as you also noted, its long 
tradition of supporting homeland security, mobilizing over 
25,000 Guard and Reserve soldiers for Title 10 or Federal 
service here and overseas and activating another 11,000 Guard 
soldiers for State-controlled homeland security missions.
    In addition to mobilizing reserves, we have also expanded 
our stop-loss program to suspend the voluntary separation of 
over 12,000 Active and Ready Reserve soldiers. Despite the 
disruption, our soldiers, their families, and employers are 
responding magnificently.
    But these are not long-term solutions and additional 
wartime manning requirements with no adjustment in our global 
posture to offset end strength will further strain the force. 
The strain may begin to manifest itself in future retention 
shortfalls, I am sure beginning in the Reserve components and 
extending into the active Army.
    Our second task is to transform the Army to meet the 
challenges of the next conflict, as the Chief of Staff set down 
the marker, I believe right here in this room, several years 
ago. America's future depends on it since transformation is at 
the heart of our competitive advantage as a Nation. However, 
transformation is a process, not an end state. To the extent we 
do not transform, we are at risk.
    To reduce risk, we are accelerating our transformation to 
the full spectrum Objective Force. We will shortly select the 
lead system integrator for the Army's family of Future Combat 
Systems, the foundation of the Objective Force. Let me 
emphasize that this is not a business as usual approach. The 
lead system integrator will be charged with achieving the 
milestones for fielding a threshold capability this decade by 
incorporating best of breed designs within the United States 
and maximum competition for best value procurements.
    Selection of a lead system integrator represents a bold and 
dramatic step forward in our journey to transform the Army. As 
I said, we should be able to announce that very, very shortly.
    We are presently fielding an Interim Force, six interim 
brigade combat teams, to close the capabilities gap between our 
heavy and light forces. The Interim Force also provides a 
bridge to the Objective Force through leader development and 
experimentation. At the same time, we are selectively 
modernizing and recapitalizing key systems in our Legacy Force, 
as you touched on, as a hedge against near-term risk and to 
facilitate the fielding of the Objective Force. This approach 
will both provide an enhanced readiness and provide an 
affordable means to transform.
    The third task is to secure the resources needed to pursue 
both the war on terror and Army transformation. The fiscal year 
2003 budget addresses all of our priorities. However, we 
continue to assume risk in our Legacy Force and longstanding 
shortfalls remain in installation, sustainment, restoration, 
and modernization. As good stewards, we are doing our part to 
free up resources for investment in higher priority programs. 
We have made tough tradeoffs. We have terminated 29 programs in 
the last 3 years, we have restructured 12 more, reduced 
recapitalization from 21 to 17 systems, and accelerated the 
retirement of 1,000 Vietnam-era helicopters.
    We are also striving to manage the Army more efficiently, 
starting at the top by restructuring the Army's headquarters 
into a leaner, more integrated organization. This initiative 
allows us to meet the congressionally mandated 15 percent 
reduction in headquarters staffs and reinvest manpower saved 
back into the operational Army, thereby increasing our tooth-
to-tail ratio.
    We are also leveraging e-business concepts and technologies 
in our Army knowledge management initiative. This initiative 
involves managing our information infrastructure more like an 
integrated enterprise. For example, by October we will have 
pared down the network servers in our personnel system from 
4,500 to one super-server database, reducing errors and saving 
millions in cost avoidance and staff hours. Even greater 
economies of scale will be realized as we continue to flatten 
our operational structure and eliminate unnecessary systems.
    We are also achieving efficiencies through three other 
important Army initiatives: centralized installation 
management, utilities privatization, and our residential 
communities initiative. In the interest of time, I will defer 
comment on these initiatives until our question and answer 
period.

                           prepared statement

    Let me conclude by thanking the members of the 
distinguished committee for your strong support. I look forward 
to working with you to ensure our Army remains, as you say and 
as we all say when we see soldiers in the field, doing a 
wonderful job for our country, the best Army in the world.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    [The statement follows:]
Prepared Joint Statement of Honorable Thomas E. White and General Eric 
                              K. Shinseki
    Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you 
for this opportunity to report to you on the United States Army's 
readiness to provide for our Nation's security today and in the future. 
Throughout our Nation's history, The Army has demonstrated that it is 
America's decisive ground combat force with capabilities sufficiently 
diverse to cover the full spectrum of operations demanded by the 
Nation--anytime, anywhere. The essence of The Army remains unchanged--
an ethos of service to the Nation, the readiness to fight and win wars 
decisively, and a willingness to accomplish any mission the American 
people ask of us.
    Today, we are engaged in a global war on terrorism and defense of 
our homeland. Soldiers, On Point for the Nation, are protecting and 
promoting American interests around the globe. They are accomplishing 
these vital missions much as we have for over 226 years with little 
fanfare or attention. The Army is able to accomplish what is asked by 
relying on the strength of its Soldiers--active, National Guard, Army 
Reserve--and civilians, who honorably and proudly answer the calls to 
duty.
    The Army has no illusions about the challenges it faces. It must 
help win the global war on terrorism and prepare for future wars and 
conflicts by effectively using the resources you provide us to 
transform. With the continued support of Congress and the 
Administration, our Soldiers will continue to do their part to 
decisively win the global war on terrorism, rapidly transform 
themselves to fight and win new and different kinds of conflicts, meet 
our obligations to allies and friends, and maintain our readiness for 
the unexpected and unpredictable challenges that may arise.
                         strategic environment
    The attacks of September 11 provide compelling evidence that the 
strategic environment remains dangerous and unpredictable. Although we 
may sense dangerous trends and potential threats, there is little 
certainty about how these threats may be postured against America or 
her interests. Uncertainty marks the global war on terrorism, and our 
Soldiers continue to be involved in smaller-scale contingencies and 
conflicts. Yet, the potential for large-scale conventional combat 
operations will continue to lurk just beneath the surface. Victory in 
battle will require versatile combat formations and agile Soldiers, who 
can deploy rapidly, undertake a multiplicity of missions, operate 
continuously over extended distances without large logistics bases, and 
maneuver with speed and precision to gain positional advantage. Our 
Soldiers must be capable of prosecuting prompt and sustained land 
operations across a spectrum of conflict resulting in decisive victory.
                          strategic framework
    The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) established a new 
strategic framework for the defense of the Nation that struck a balance 
between near-term readiness and our ability to transform ourselves in 
order to meet current and future conflicts. The report outlined a new 
operational concept that gives continued priority to homeland defense, 
promotes deterrence through forward presence, and asks that we have the 
ability to conduct both smaller-scale contingencies and large scale, 
high-intensity combat operations simultaneously.
    Our Soldiers can defeat enemy armies, seize and control terrain, 
and control populations and resources with minimal collateral 
casualties and damage. They can operate across the spectrum of military 
operations, from full-scale conventional conflict to fighting 
terrorists, to setting the conditions for humanitarian assistance. This 
multifaceted ground capability enables us to assure our allies and 
friends, dissuade future military competition, deter threats and 
coercion, and, when necessary, decisively defeat any adversary.
    As The Army continues to work with other departments, agencies, and 
organizations, emerging requirements that are not fully defined in the 
2001 QDR may require additional resourcing, whether technological, 
logistical, or force structure. Despite ten years of downsizing, The 
Army has accomplished all assigned missions to a high standard. In 
short, we are doing more with less, and the strain on the force is 
real. Our Soldiers continue to give us more in operational readiness 
than we have resourced.
    While we fight and win the global war on terrorism, The Army must 
prepare itself to handle demanding missions in the future strategic 
environment. Over two years ago, The Army undertook transforming itself 
into a force that is more strategically responsive and dominant at 
every point on the spectrum of military operations. We have gained 
insight from previous deployments, operations, and exercises, along 
with leading-edge work in Army Battle Labs, joint and Army warfighting 
experiments, and wargames. With this insight, The Army embarked on 
initiatives to assure its dominance in a new contemporary operational 
environment by deterring and defeating adversaries who rely on 
surprise, deception, and asymmetric warfare to achieve their objectives 
against conventional forces. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and our 
subsequent operations overseas validated The Army's Transformation. If 
anything, September 11 provided new urgency to our efforts. Thus, we 
are accelerating Transformation to give our commanders the most 
advanced capabilities they need to ensure that we have the best led, 
best equipped, and best trained Soldiers for the emerging global 
environment. And to mitigate risk as we transform to meet future 
requirements, we will prioritize among the imperatives of meeting 
existing threats, safeguarding our homeland, and winning the war 
against terrorism.
                   soldiers--on point for the nation
    Globally, Soldiers offer tangible reassurance to our allies, build 
trust and confidence, promote regional stability, encourage democratic 
institutions, and deter conflict. Nothing speaks to the values of 
America more than Soldiers on the ground providing comfort, aid, and 
stability at home and abroad. The Army, as part of a joint military 
team, provides a wide range of options to our leaders and commanders. 
As we have seen, in today's world we cannot win without the human 
dimension on the battleground. Whether it be gathering intelligence, 
challenging an adversary's ability to conceal and seek cover, or 
protecting innocent civilians, the American Soldier remains the 
ultimate precision weapon during combat operations, particularly when 
legitimate targets are interspersed among non-combatants. In the final 
analysis, it is the Soldier on the ground who demonstrates the 
resilience of American commitment and provides the needed flexibility 
to decisively defeat our adversaries.
    Since October 2001, Army conventional and special operations 
forces, as part of the joint force, have participated in Operation 
ENDURING FREEDOM in the Afghanistan theater of operations. The range of 
their capabilities has been extensive. These highly trained Soldiers 
have worked with local forces to forge a powerful alliance. They have 
designated targets for air strikes, secured airfields, and performed 
reconnaissance and security missions that facilitated the safe 
introduction of follow-on forces. Supporting the war effort, they have 
provided security to joint forces, critical facilities, and supply 
lines, and they have received and prepared both combat and humanitarian 
supplies for air delivery to Afghanistan. Currently, more than 12,000 
Soldiers are deployed--from Egypt to Pakistan, from Kenya to 
Kazakhstan. And although hostilities in Afghanistan are shifting focus, 
requirements for ground forces are growing--they are assuring regional 
stability in Afghanistan, directing humanitarian assistance and relief 
operations, securing detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and deploying 
to the Philippines.
    At home, The Army continues its long tradition of support to 
homeland security. Even before September 11, 2001, The Army had 10 
trained and certified Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams 
ready to assist civil authorities and had trained 28,000 civilian first 
responders in 105 cities. Since the attacks, we have mobilized over 
25,000 Army National Guard (ARNG) and United States Army Reserve (USAR) 
Soldiers for federal service here and overseas. Nearly 11,000 Soldiers 
are on state-controlled duty securing airports, seaports, reservoirs, 
power plants, the Nation's capital region, and serving at ``ground 
zero'' in New York City alongside the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. To 
increase protection for our citizens and reduce vulnerability, we 
accelerated the safe destruction of the U.S. stockpile of lethal 
chemical agent and munitions while combating the proliferation of 
chemical weapons. And continuing a commitment to civil authorities, 
nearly 500 Soldiers worked Super Bowl XXXVI, and over 5,000 Soldiers 
are helping ensure the security of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt 
Lake City, Utah.
    But, fighting the global war on terrorism in no way diminishes the 
requirements placed on The Army for support to missions and operations 
around the world--indeed, it expands it. While The Army remains engaged 
at home, it is prudently taking action for follow-on operations around 
the world, to include mobilizing some 2,000 ARNG Soldiers to augment 
our missions in the European theater. In fact, The Army--active, ARNG, 
and USAR--has over 124,000 Soldiers and 38,000 civilians stationed in 
110 countries. Additionally, on any given day last year some 27,000 
Soldiers were deployed to 60 countries for operations and training 
missions. And it is easy to forget that our Soldiers have been on the 
ground conducting peacekeeping missions in the Balkans for six years, 
in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for eleven years, and in the Sinai for 
nineteen years. Our Soldiers have been in Korea and Europe for over 50 
years, assuring their peace and stability while, at the same time, 
providing the Nation with a rapid deployment capability to areas near 
those theaters of operations, as needed. Depending on the next move in 
the war on terrorism, additional manning requirements will be placed on 
The Army that will inevitably create more stress on our current 
endstrength.
         the army vision: people, readiness, and transformation
    On October 12, 1999, The Army articulated its Vision that defined 
how The Army would meet the Nation's requirements now and into the 21st 
Century. The Vision is comprised of three interdependent components--
People, Readiness, and Transformation. It provides direction and 
structure for prioritizing resources to ensure The Army remains the 
most dominant and intimidating ground force in the world to deter those 
who would contemplate threatening the interests of America. Ultimately, 
it is about risk management, striking a balance between readiness today 
and preparedness for tomorrow. It is about having overmatching 
capabilities while simultaneously reducing our vulnerabilities in order 
to dominate those who would threaten our interests--now and in the 
future. It is about examining where we are now and where we need to be, 
and it is about achieving decisive victory--anywhere, anytime, against 
any opposition. The Army's budget request for fiscal year 2003 supports 
The Army Vision and the strategic guidance to transform to a full 
spectrum force while ensuring warfighting readiness. It reflects a 
balanced base program that will allow The Army to remain trained and 
ready throughout fiscal year 2003, while ensuring our force is 
protected as we fulfill our critical role in the global war on 
terrorism. It mans the force--endstrength of 480,000 Active Component, 
350,000 Army National Guard, and 205,000 Army Reserve Soldiers--and 
provides our Soldiers with better pay and incentives.
People
    People--Soldiers, civilians, retirees, veterans, and their 
families--are The Army. People are central to everything we do in The 
Army. Institutions do not transform; people do. Platforms and 
organizations do not defend our Nation; people do. Units do not train, 
they do not stay ready, they do not grow and develop leadership, they 
do not sacrifice, and they do not take risks on behalf of the Nation; 
people do. We must adequately man our force, provide for the Well-Being 
of our Soldiers and their families, and develop leaders for the future 
so that The Army continues to be a professionally and personally 
rewarding experience. Soldiers will always be the centerpiece of our 
formations. They are our sons and daughters. We are committed to 
recruiting and retaining the best people and giving them the finest 
tools to do their job so that they remain the world's best army.
Manning the Force
    Current and future military operations depend on an Army with the 
flexibility to respond quickly in order to rapidly meet changing 
operational requirements. The Army has approached its manpower 
challenge in a variety of ways. In fiscal year 2000, we implemented a 
personnel strategy to man units at 100 percent. Starting with 
divisional combat units, the program expanded in fiscal year 2001 and 
fiscal year 2002 to include early deploying units. Funding in the 
fiscal year 2003 budget for change-of-station moves improves our 
ability to man units at desired grade and skill levels by placing 
Soldiers where they are needed. The Army is currently assessing its 
ability to fill remaining units by the end of fiscal year 2004.
    The ARNG and USAR now make up more than 50 percent of The Army's 
force structure. Ongoing and expanded reserve integration initiatives--
to include Full Time Support--have increased reserve readiness and 
increased their ability to rapidly transition from a peacetime to a 
wartime posture.
    A new advertising campaign in 2001--An Army of One--raised the 
awareness and interest levels of potential Soldiers. The Army achieved 
100 percent of its goal for all components in recruiting and retention 
for the second year in a row. And to ensure that we recruit and retain 
sufficient quality personnel, we continue to examine innovative 
recruiting and retention programs. The increases for enlistment and 
retention bonuses will enable The Army to sustain these recruiting and 
retention successes, although some shortfalls remain.
            Well-Being
    Our Soldiers appreciate, more than you realize, your support this 
past year for pay increases of at least 5 percent and the 3.6 percent 
for the civilians who support them. Targeted pay increases for highly 
skilled enlisted Soldiers and mid-grade officers, the online electronic 
Army University education program, and upgraded single-soldier barracks 
and residential communities further support and aid in maintaining the 
Well-Being of Soldiers willing to put their lives at risk for our 
national interests. In turn, the attention to a Soldier's Well-Being 
helps The Army recruit and retain the best people. Our Soldiers ask 
little in return, but they judge their Nation's commitment to them by 
how well it takes care of them and their families. It is a commitment 
we must honor.
    Army readiness is inextricably linked to the Well-Being of our 
People. Our success depends on the whole team--Soldiers, civilians, 
retirees, and their families--all of whom serve the Nation. The term 
Well-Being is not a synonym with ``quality of life,'' but rather an 
expansion of the concept that integrates and incorporates existing 
quality of life initiatives and programs. Well-Being takes a 
multifaceted approach. We are working with the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense to improve TRICARE in order to provide better medical care 
for Soldiers, families, and retirees and to continue to close the 
compensation gap between Soldiers and the civilian sector, and the 
budget's increases housing allowances reduces out-of-pocket expenses 
for military personnel from 11.3 percent in fiscal year 2002 to 7.5 
percent in fiscal year 2003 and puts The Army on track for eliminating 
average out-of-pocket costs entirely by fiscal year 2005 for those 
Soldiers and families living on the economy.
            Leader Development
    Civilian and military leaders are the linchpin of Transformation. 
The leaders and Soldiers who will implement the new warfighting 
doctrine must be adaptive and self-aware, capable of independent 
operations separated from friendly elements for days at a time, 
exercising initiative within their commander's intent to rapidly 
exploit opportunities as they present themselves on the battlefield. 
Leaders must be intuitive and capable of rapid tactical decision-
making, and all Soldiers must master the information and weapons 
systems technologies in order to leverage their full potential. But new 
technologies and new kinds of warfare will demand a new kind of leader. 
As part of our transformation process, The Army is taking a 
comprehensive look at the way we develop officers, warrant officers and 
non-commissioned officers through the Army Training and Leader 
Development Panels to review and assess issues and provide 
recommendations on how to produce The Army's future leaders. We have 
expanded these reviews to include Army civilians in anticipation of the 
need to replace the increasing number who will become retirement 
eligible after fiscal year 2003. The Army must have top-notch military 
and civilian people at all levels in order to meet the global, 
economic, and technological challenges of the future.
    In June 2001, The Army published the most significant reshaping of 
Army warfighting doctrine since 1982. Field Manual 3-0, Operations, 
emphasizes The Army's ability to apply decisive force through network-
centric capabilities and shows just how dramatically The Army must 
transform itself to fight both differently and more effectively. This 
doctrine will assist in the development of a new force--the Objective 
Force--that maximizes the technological advantages of equipment, leader 
development, and evolutionary warfighting concepts. The Objective Force 
will demand a generation of leaders who know how to think, not what to 
think.
Readiness
    At its most fundamental level, war is a brutal contest of wills. 
Winning decisively means dominating the enemy. To be dominant, we must 
be not only organized, manned, and equipped, but also fully trained. 
Today, The Army is ready for its assigned missions, but sustained 
support from the Nation, Congress, and the Administration is required 
to ensure that we maintain our readiness. To do so requires that we pay 
attention to training, installations, force protection and readiness 
reporting. The fiscal year 2003 budget request supports readiness and 
provides funding to maintain our current facilities at an acceptable 
level. Fiscal year 2003 funding improves on fiscal year 2002 levels in 
terms of maintaining a stable training base to develop quality leaders 
and soldiers. Resources have been aligned to ensure our forces are 
trained, equipped and ready to fight. In addition, funding is provided 
to enhance unit training and deployability--a positive impact on 
overall readiness.
            Unit Training
    Tough, demanding training which is supported by an infrastructure 
that allows us to train, sustain, and deploy is essential to readiness. 
History has taught us and we have learned that, in the end, armies 
fight the way they train. The Army is committed to fully executing our 
training strategy--the higher the quality of training, the better the 
leaders and warfighters we produce. The result is an increased state of 
readiness to serve our Nation. To this end, we must fully modernize 
training ranges, combat training centers, and training aids, devices, 
simulators, and simulations to provide adequate and challenging 
training. The Army has funded the integration of virtual and 
constructive training capabilities to achieve realism and cost 
effectiveness.
    As we move to greater network-centric warfare capability, our 
forces will operate with even greater dispersion, and maintaining 
sufficient maneuver areas for training these extended formations will 
become even more critical. Combat is a complex mixture of people, 
equipment, and the training that fuses them together. Live training 
requires adequate land, sea, air and spectrum to even begin to 
realistically recreate combat-like conditions. That space is 
increasingly being encroached upon, intensifying environmental 
constraints and operational restrictions that will result in 
unanticipated and unwarranted limitations on needed test and training 
activities. Thus, The Army is implementing a sustainable program to 
manage the lifecycle of training and testing ranges by integrating 
operational needs, land management, explosives safety, and 
environmental stewardship. This program will ensure the continuing 
viability of training ranges by addressing the multiple aspects of 
encroachment: endangered species and critical habitats, unexploded 
ordnance and munitions, spectrum encroachment, airspace restrictions, 
air quality, noise, and urban growth. As we transform to a future force 
with new systems, organizational structures, and new doctrine to 
achieve full spectrum operational capability, our training enablers and 
infrastructure, along with realistic and relevant training venues, must 
be funded to match the timelines we have established to field a highly 
trained Soldier--one whose unit is poised to fight new and different 
kinds of conflicts while maintaining traditional warfighting skills.
    The Army OPTEMPO budget is a top priority, and The Army is 
committed to improving its training and unit readiness. The budget 
supports a ground OPTEMPO program of 800 M1 Abrams Tank miles at home 
station. The Flying Hour Program is funded for an average of 14.5 
required live flying hours per aircrew per month for the Active 
Component, and nine live aircrew flying hours for Reserve Components. 
We have scheduled ten brigade rotations (nine Active Component and one 
Army National Guard) through the National Training Center, ten brigade 
rotations (nine Active Component and one Army National Guard) through 
the Joint Readiness Training Center. The Battle Command Training 
Program will conduct two corps Warfighter exercises and train six 
division command and staff groups, an increase of one divisional staff 
training exercise in fiscal year 2003. Additionally, funding for 
training enabler support has been increased 20 percent from fiscal year 
2002 levels.
            Installations
    Installations provide homes, family and training support, and power 
projection platforms for The Army. They are the bases where Soldiers 
live, train, and from which they launch on their missions. Worldwide, 
we have physical plants worth over $220 billion. For too many years, 
The Army has under funded long-term facilities maintenance in order to 
fully fund combat readiness and contingency operations; thus, we now 
have first-class Soldiers living and working in third-class facilities. 
Commanders currently rate two-thirds of their infrastructure condition 
so poor that it significantly impacts mission accomplishment and 
morale. The fiscal year 2003 budget funds over 90 percent of 
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) requirements and 
builds on the fiscal year 2002 funded levels, slowing the deterioration 
of our aging infrastructure. But, the major investment in SRM in fiscal 
year 2002 is helping to improve only the most critical conditions in 
our crumbling infrastructure. Over the next five years, SRM shortfalls 
will continue to approximate $3 billion annually as a result of our 
aging facilities. Exacerbating this situation is the fact that The Army 
has more facility infrastructure than we need. The cost of operating 
and sustaining these facilities directly competes with funding our 
warfighting capability. The realignment or closure of excess facilities 
will free funds for installations and bring the recapitilization rate 
closer to the Department of Defense's goal of 67 years by 2010. The 
Army is divesting itself of mothballed facilities and examining 
privatization alternatives. For example, we are capitalizing on the 
success of the Residential Communities Initiatives by expanding the 
program to 24 projects to more efficiently and effectively manage 
installations. Encompassing over 63,000 family housing units, the 
program allows the private sector to remodel, build, and manage housing 
on Army bases in order to provide the quality housing our Soldiers and 
their families deserve. The fiscal year 2003 budget provides the 
military facilities and soldier housing needed to improve Army 
readiness, quality of life, and efficiency. In fiscal year 2003, we 
will institute a centralized installation management organization that 
will improve our facilities and infrastructure through consistent 
funding and standards that promote the equitable delivery of base 
operation services and achieve efficiencies through corporate practices 
and regionalization.
            Force Protection
    The missions and training we assign Soldiers are not without risks, 
and Soldiers must be able to live, train, and work in safe, secure 
environments. We minimize risks by proactively protecting our force. 
For example, we reevaluated force protection security programs and 
adjusted over $800 million in fiscal year 2003 to further support 
controlled access to installations, in-transit security, counter-
terrorism training improvements, information assurance, situational 
awareness, crisis response, and force protection command and control. 
An additional $1.8 billion is required for further force protection and 
security program requirements generated in the wake of the attacks on 
America.
            Readiness Reporting
    Measuring readiness requires accuracy, objectivity, and uniformity. 
The Army is transforming its current readiness reporting system to 
achieve greater responsiveness and clarity on unit and installation 
status. The Strategic Readiness System (SRS) will provide senior 
leaders with an accurate and complete near real time picture 
representative of the entire Army (operating forces, institutional 
forces, and infrastructure). The SRS will be a predictive management 
tool capable of linking costs to readiness so resources can be 
effectively applied to near- and far-term requirements. A prototype SRS 
is being evaluated at selected installations, and its development will 
continue to ensure compliance with congressionally directed readiness 
reporting.
Transformation
    Transformation is first and foremost about changing the way we 
fight in order to win our Nation's wars--decisively. The 21st Century 
strategic environment and the implications of emerging technologies 
necessitate Army Transformation. The global war on terrorism reinforces 
the need for a transformed Army that is more strategically responsive, 
deployable, lethal, agile, versatile, survivable, and sustainable than 
current forces.
    Technology will enable our Soldiers to see the battlefield in ways 
not possible before. See First enables leaders and Soldiers to gain a 
greater situational awareness of themselves, their opponents, and the 
battle space on which they move and fight. Superior awareness enables 
us to Understand First, to assess and decide on solutions to the 
tactical and operational problems at hand faster than our opponents--to 
gain decision superiority over our opponents. Networked units are able 
to Act First, to seize and retain the initiative, moving out of contact 
with the enemy to attack his sources of strength or key vulnerabilities 
at a time and place of our choosing. The Army uses precision fires--
whether delivered by joint platforms or Soldiers firing direct fire 
weapons--to defeat the enemy as rapidly and decisively as possible. 
Army units will be capable of transitioning seamlessly from stability 
operations to combat operations and back again, given the requirements 
of the contingency. And when we attack, we destroy the enemy and Finish 
Decisively.
    The Army is taking a holistic approach to Transformation, 
implementing change across its doctrine, training, leader development, 
organization, materiel, and soldier systems, as well as across all of 
its components. Transformation will result in a different Army, not 
just a modernized version of the current Army. Combining the best 
characteristics of our current forces, The Army will possess the 
lethality and speed of the heavy force, the rapid deployment mentality 
and toughness of our light forces, and the unmatched precision and 
close combat capabilities of our special operations forces--adopting a 
common warrior culture across the entire force. Transformation will 
field the best-trained, most combat effective, most lethal Soldier in 
the world.
    True Transformation takes advantage of new approaches to 
operational concepts and capabilities and blends old and new 
technologies and innovative organizations that efficiently anticipate 
new or emerging opportunities. Transformation will provide versatile 
forces that have a decisive margin of advantage over potential 
adversaries and fulfill the Nation's full spectrum requirements. 
Transformed ground forces will dominate maneuver on the battlefield to 
gain positional advantage over the enemy with overwhelming speed while 
enhancing the capabilities of the joint force. This approach will 
contribute to the early termination of the conflict on terms favorable 
to the United States and its allies. Transformation will exploit 
network-centric capabilities to enable rapidly deployable and 
sustainable Army forces to quickly and precisely strike fixed and 
mobile targets throughout the depth and breadth of the battlefield.
    Transformation consists of three interrelated elements--the 
Objective Force, the Interim Force, and the Legacy Force. We will 
develop concepts and technologies for the Objective Force while 
fielding an Interim Force to meet the near-term requirement to bridge 
the operational gap between our heavy and light forces. The third 
element of Transformation is the modernization and recapitalization of 
existing platforms within our current force--the Legacy Force--to 
provide these platforms with the enhanced capabilities available 
through the application of information technologies. Several important 
initiatives that should produce even greater advances in 2002 are the 
production, testing, and delivery of the Interim Force vehicle early 
this year, and the development of mature technologies to achieve 
Objective Force capabilities.
    Digitization concepts tested and proved with the Legacy Force are 
being refined in the Interim Force and will be applied to the Objective 
Force. These efforts, along with planned training and testing and joint 
exercises--such as the U.S. Joint Forces Command's ``Millennium 
Challenge 2002''--will enable The Army to stay ahead of current and 
future adversaries by providing the Nation and its Soldiers with 
unmatched advanced capabilities. To achieve additional momentum, we 
will carefully concentrate research and development and acquisition 
funding on our most critical systems and programs.
            The Objective Force
    The end result of Transformation is a new, more effective, and more 
efficient Army with a new fighting structure--the Objective Force. It 
will provide our Nation with an increased range of options for crisis 
response, engagement, or sustained land force operations. Instead of 
the linear sequential operations of the past, the Objective Force will 
fight in a distributed and non-contiguous manner. Objective Force units 
will be highly responsive, deploy rapidly because of reduced platform 
weight and smaller logistical footprints, and arrive early to a crisis 
to dissuade or deter conflict. These forces will be capable of vertical 
maneuver and defeating enemy anti-access strategies by descending upon 
multiple points of entry. With superior situational awareness, 
Objective Force Soldiers will identify and attack critical enemy 
capabilities and key vulnerabilities throughout the depth of the battle 
space. For optimum success, we will harmonize our Transformation 
efforts with similar efforts by other Services, business and industry, 
and our science and technology partners.
    By focusing much of its spending in science and technology, The 
Army will create a new family of ground systems called the Future 
Combat Systems (FCS). This networked system-of-systems--a key to 
fielding the Objective Force--will allow leaders and Soldiers to 
harness the power of digitized information systems. And the FCS will 
allow commanders to bring a substantial, perhaps even exponential, 
increase in combat capabilities to the joint force without a large 
logistics footprint. Newer technologies will be inserted into the FCS 
as they become ready. In November 2001, the solicitation for the FCS 
Lead System Integrator (LSI) was released to industry. In coordination 
with The Army and DARPA, the LSI will select the ``best of breed'' 
technologies, components, and sub-components through maximum 
competition among the sub-contractors. The Lead System Integrator is a 
new solicitation and acquisition strategy that will accelerate The 
Army's Transformation and see the FCS first unit equipped and 
operational by 2010. We anticipate selection of the Lead System 
Integrator in March 2002. In the fiscal year 2003 budget, we invested 
97 percent of our Science and Technology resources toward the design 
and development of the Objective Force and enabling technologies. With 
this funding level, The Army will begin fielding an Objective Force--
this decade.
    We owe our Soldiers the best tools and equipment so they are not 
put at risk by obsolete or aging combat support systems. The Comanche 
helicopter, the Objective Force Warrior system, and Command, Control, 
Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
Reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) initiatives are integral components of the 
network-centric operations of the Objective Force. They are the 
infrastructure that allows Soldiers to do what they do best--fight and 
win our Nation's wars. Comanche will provide an armed aerial 
reconnaissance capability critical for gathering intelligence for 
coordinated attacks against targets of opportunity, and the fiscal year 
2003 budget supports continued System Development and Demonstration and 
Mission Equipment Package Development, component development testing, 
and flight-testing. The Objective Force Warrior system will provide 
quantum improvements over our current soldier systems in weight, 
signature, information exchange capabilities, ballistics tolerance, and 
chemical, biological, and environmental protection for our individual 
Soldiers on the battlefield.
    Terrestrial systems alone will not enable full spectrum dominance. 
Space is a vertical extension of the battlefield and a key enabler and 
force multiplier for land force operations. Objective Force commanders 
will access and integrate the full spectrum of C\4\ISR and Information 
Operations capabilities, to include national agencies, strategic and 
operational units, tactical organizations, and joint or multinational 
forces. In short, commanders will draw upon a wide array of 
capabilities that enable not just overwhelming force projection, but 
the ability to out-think our adversaries.
    Transporting and sustaining the Objective Force will require 
capabilities that are cost effective, that adhere to rapid deployment 
timelines, and that have a smaller logistical footprint over longer 
distances without jeopardizing readiness. Materiel readiness will be 
maintained at reduced costs by increasing inventory visibility, 
eliminating artificial ownership barriers, and integrating automated 
systems.
            The Interim Force
    The Interim Force is a transition force that bridges the near-term 
capability gap between our heavy and light forces. It will combine the 
best characteristics of the current Army forces--heavy, light, and 
special operations forces. Organized into Interim Brigade Combat Teams 
(IBCTs), it will leverage today's technology with selected capabilities 
of the Legacy Force to serve as a link to the Objective Force. Most 
importantly, the Interim Force--a combat ready force--will allow 
exploration of new operational concepts relevant to the Objective 
Force. The Army will field at least six of these new, more responsive 
brigade combat teams. These units comprise an Interim Force that will 
strengthen deterrence and expand options for the field commanders. Over 
the past two years, we have organized two brigades at Fort Lewis, 
Washington, and additional IBCTs are programmed for Alaska, Louisiana, 
Hawaii, and Pennsylvania. Leaders and Soldiers of the IBCTs at Fort 
Lewis, along with an Army coordination cell, have been working closely 
with all supporting agencies to develop wide-ranging iterative 
solutions to doctrine, training, logistics, organizations, material, 
and soldier systems required to field the Interim Force. The first IBCT 
has completed brigade and battalion level headquarters training with 
the Army's Battle Command Training Program and company level maneuver 
live fire training across the spectrum of conflict. The IBCT is 
training extensively for restrictive and urban terrain, and the force 
has used special operations training techniques and procedures for the 
development of night and urban fighting techniques. This brigade will 
attain its first incremental warfighting capability--and infantry 
company--in August of this year, and its full initial operational 
capability in May 2003.
    Training of the Interim Force is proving that the practice of 
combining heavy, light, and special operations cultures results in a 
more adaptable and capable leader or Soldier. The Army has learned from 
experimentation that technology such as digitization allows the 
integration of intelligence data with tactical and operational 
information and gives our leaders and Soldiers the ability to seize and 
retain the initiative, build momentum quickly, and win decisively. The 
Army is accelerating the development and fielding of the Interim Force 
and studying the viability of fielding an additional interim capability 
in the European area. The fiscal year 2003 budget continues funding of 
303 Interim Armored Vehicles (IAV) in fiscal year 2002 and 332 in 
fiscal year 2003 for the third IBCT.
            Legacy Force--Revitalizing The Army
    Transformation applies to what we do, as well as how we do it. We 
are working with the business community to accelerate change across the 
entire Army, promote cooperation, share information, gain greater 
control over resource management, and adopt better business practices 
by eliminating functions or activities that no longer provide value. 
This initiative seeks to focus constrained resources on achieving 
excellence in areas that contribute directly to warfighting. 
Transformation of our business practices cannot wait, and we have 
started at the highest levels.
    The Army is restructuring the Army Secretariat and Army Staff to 
create a more unified headquarters for the conduct of enhanced policy, 
planning, and resource management activities. The goal is to transform 
the headquarters into a streamlined, integrated staff more responsive 
to rapidly changing operational and institutional missions and to push 
more resources out to the field units. This will streamline the flow of 
information and speed decision-making. The unified headquarters will 
seek greater integration of the reserve components into key staff 
positions to better accommodate issues and concerns. To minimize 
turbulence in the workforce, we will reinvest manpower savings in other 
Army priorities. Realignment initiatives already underway will help us 
meet the congressionally mandated 15 percent reduction in headquarters 
staffs. With congressional support, The Army will apply these 
methodologies to the entire force.
    As The Army transforms, the Legacy Force--our current force--will 
remain ready to provide the Nation with the warfighting capability 
needed to keep America strong and free. Through selective modernization 
and recapitalization, the Legacy Force allows The Army to meet today's 
challenges and provides the time and flexibility to get Transformation 
right. Effectively managing risk without sacrificing readiness, The 
Army is focusing resources on systems and units that are essential to 
both sustaining near-term readiness and fielding the Objective Force 
while taking prudent risk with the remainder of the force. 
Recapitalization rebuilds or selectively upgrades existing weapons 
systems and tactical vehicles, while modernization develops and 
procures new systems with improved warfighting capabilities. The Army 
has identified 17 systems--its Prioritized Recapitalization Program--
and fully funded them in selected units. Among these systems are the 
AH-64 Apache, UH-60 Black Hawk, and CH-47 Chinook helicopters; the M1 
Abrams tank; the M2 Bradley fighting vehicle; and the Patriot Advanced 
Capability-3 missile defense upgrade. Modernization provides the 
linkage to facilitate the fielding of the Interim and Objective Forces. 
The Crusader self-propelled howitzer will provide combat overmatch to 
our commanders until at least 2032 and serve as a technology carrier to 
the Objective Force. Recent restructuring initiatives have reduced 
Crusader's strategic lift requirements by 50 percent. Technology 
improvements have increased its range by 33 percent, increased the 
sustained rate of fire by a factor of 10, and utilizing robotics, 
reduced crew requirements by 33 percent. The fiscal year 2003 budget 
supports completion of the detailed design effort, completion of 
critical technologies integration and risk reduction efforts, 
powerpack/drive train integration of the chassis, and initiation of 
manufacturing of System Development and Demonstration prototypes. 
Modernized M1A2SEP tanks and M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicles are capable 
of the same situational awareness as the Interim Force, thus enabling 
Soldiers and leaders to learn network-centric warfare on existing 
chassis. The advantage these information technologies provide our 
current force further enhance its warfighting capability. Army Aviation 
modernization efforts will reduce our helicopter inventory by 25 
percent and retain only three types of helicopters in service, and the 
savings in training and logistics will be used to support the 
recapitalization of our remaining fleet. As part of its Legacy Force 
strategy, The Army terminated an additional 18 systems and restructured 
12 in this budget cycle.
                       a commitment to the future
    The Army, like the American people, remains committed to preserving 
freedom. As we have for over 226 years, we will continue to win our 
Nation's wars. Contrary to the expectations of some, the post-Cold War 
period has not seen a reduction in the demands placed on Soldiers on 
the ground. In fact, in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union, 
the international security environment has underscored the importance 
of ongoing commitments and highlighted new requirements for The Army. 
These increased demands have intensified the competition for resources 
and reduced needed investments in people, systems, platforms, and 
research and development. Unless redressed, risks incurred from this 
resources shortfall could undermine The Army's ability to satisfy 
national security requirements. At the same time, the war on terrorism, 
the requirement to secure the homeland, and the need to maintain 
readiness for possible near-term contingencies have validated the need 
for a new kind of Army--a capabilities-based ground force that can 
fight and win battles across the full spectrum of military operations. 
We are accelerating Army Transformation to achieve these capabilities. 
The Army cannot predict what other changes the future will bring, but 
what will not change is the need for our Nation to have the best 
trained, best led and best equipped Soldiers on the ground, deployed 
rapidly at precisely the right time, the right place, and with the 
right support structure as part of a joint military team.
    Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, we thank 
you once again for this opportunity to report to you today on the state 
of your Army. We look forward to discussing these issues with you.
    [Clerk's Note.--The Posture Statement 2002 can be found on the web 
at www.army.mil.]

    Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Shinseki.

                 STATEMENT OF GENERAL ERIC K. SHINSEKI

    General Shinseki. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, 
Senator Dorgan. We are honored once again, the Secretary and I, 
to be here with you and for this opportunity to update you on 
the posture of the Army and its state of readiness.
    First, it is with great regret that the Secretary and I 
express our deepest condolences to families who have suffered 
loss during this most recent fighting in the war against 
terrorism.
    We do have the greatest fighting force in the world. They 
are the best soldiers and the best leaders. Thank you for going 
to visit them and reaffirming with all of us just how great 
they are. Willingly and without hesitation, they continue to 
demonstrate their profound and abiding devotion to this Nation.
    As the Secretary has indicated, on our behalf they take 
risks. They take risks for us. They go into harm's way. They 
shed their blood, prepared to give their lives if necessary, 
and some have in the most recent fighting, to defend peace and 
freedom and our way of life.
    They will see this through to its decisive outcomes. We 
could not be prouder of all of them.
    Let me further report, Mr. Chairman, that our soldiers and 
our civilians in the Army appreciate much more than I can put 
into words--and this has something to do with the great morale 
you encounter as you and other members of this committee make 
your trips--what you have done for them in this past year: 
enhancements in pay, enhancements in housing and health care 
and retirement benefits.
    They continue to make incredible contributions and even 
more incredible sacrifices. But they look to us to demonstrate 
the Nation's appreciation and its commitment to them and their 
families. It is a commitment that you have honored well, 
members of this committee, and they are very grateful.
    Nearly 3 years ago now, the Army took a hard, 
discriminating look at itself. After examining our capabilities 
against the emerging strategic environment, we decided to take 
some risk, to break with our past. We committed ourselves to 
transforming the way we will fight and will win the wars, the 
new wars of this new century. This committee elected to 
underwrite that transformation, an Army transformation, at a 
time when the very term was a bit unfamiliar and uncommon.
    Today when one considers the magnitude of what we have 
accomplished with your support, it is staggering. With this 
submission, this Army submission for the fiscal year 2003 
budget, the Army buys its last heavy tank--confirmation of our 
sustainable momentum in our move towards the irreversibility 
that we seek to achieve in our transformation.
    Your investments are paying dividends. The selective 
recapitalization and modernization of our legacy systems 
maintains the acceptable readiness to fight and win today 
through this decade and the years beyond as we begin 
transformation to things that Senator Stevens asked us to be 
sensitive to. In August of this year, our first Interim Brigade 
Combat Team at Fort Lewis will achieve its initial warfighting 
capability. By this December, we intend to operationally test 
two of that brigade's battalions and by next spring we will 
evaluate the entire interim brigade for its initial operating 
capability.
    Again, this month we anticipate selecting a lead systems 
integrator for the Future Combat System, that future Objective 
Force that we intend to field at the end of this decade, a new 
solicitation and acquisition strategy that will accelerate 
transformation to the Objective Force by the year 2010. We are 
prepared to fight these near-term conflicts against terrorism 
or any of a host of other dangers even as we set about changing 
ourselves to fight the wars of the 21st century.
    Army has done a lot to help itself. We have made our own 
tough decisions. To fully fund transformation between fiscal 
year 2003 and fiscal year 2007, we have restructured or 
eliminated 18 Legacy Force modernization systems. We have 
reduced heavy maneuver and artillery battalions by 25 percent. 
We have cut aviation structure by 21 percent. We have manned 
our 10 Active Component divisions and two active cavalry 
regiments at 101 percent, something that was not in place 2\1/
2\ years ago. Since October of the year 2000, the strength of 
other early deploying units has grown from 92 to 99 percent, 
and by the end of this year, we expect that those formations 
will be fully manned at 100 percent.
    The ``Army of One'' advertising campaign that drew a lot of 
discussion when it first was revealed has been a resounding 
success as far as the Army is concerned. In 2001 we achieved 
our recruiting targets for the second year in a row and we will 
exceed our recruiting targets again this year, and I can make 
that statement today looking forward to September of this year. 
We have also exceeded our retention goals.
    We have been changing our stance as an Army and this 
President's budget builds on the momentum we have attained over 
the last 2\1/2\ years. But we need to do more and we need to 
move faster. The attacks of September 11 validated the vision 
the Army declared 2\1/2\ years ago and the ensuing war against 
terrorism has underscored the need to accelerate transformation 
to better prepare our soldiers for the uncertain challenges of 
the 21st century.
    All of our troops are performing superbly--Active, Guard, 
Reserve, and from all of the services. In Afghanistan Army 
special operators enabled the anti-Taliban forces to compel the 
enemy to mass so that significant capabilities of our air-
delivered munitions could be brought to bear. These successes 
are not accidental and they are never won easily. Victories in 
battles like Mazar-e Sharif, Herat, and Kanduz and Bagram and 
now in the Shahikot region, as well as the successful 
operations on Objectives Rhino and Gekko and in the region of 
Tora Bora, represent 10 years of painstaking work on the part 
of the Army, hard work, superior training, real world 
experiences in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Nigeria, Colombia, 
Philippines, and, yes, Pakistan and Uzbekhistan, just to name a 
few.
    Mr. Chairman, our investments have borne fruit in a 
conflict that was difficult to predict 6 months ago. Our new 
century is marked by uncertainty. Recognizing and preparing for 
uncertainty is what the Army vision is all about. In this new 
century, strategic success demands strategic responsiveness, 
seeing the world with an unblinking eye, a lethal, agile, 
survivable, versatile, and sustainable force, and the 
infrastructure and lift capabilities to deliver that force 
anywhere in the world quickly so that it can win decisively.
    That force is the Army's Objective Force, and the continued 
strong support of this Congress and the administration, with 
that support, you will see that Objective Force fielded this 
decade.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing us to be here 
and I look forward to your questions.

                       RECOGNITION OF U.S. TROOPS

    Senator Inouye. This morning all of us have used the word 
``morale'' and General Shinseki has indicated that it is 
important that we demonstrate an appreciation for the services 
rendered by these men and women and to recognize their 
contributions.
    In that line, may I ask a few questions. Let me not tie 
directly to readiness or to weapons systems. I have yet to see 
a ribbon--in all wars, if you went to Korea there was a Korea 
ribbon, or a Vietnam ribbon. I have not seen one for this 
conflict, nor have I heard of any unit receiving a unit 
citation. I see enough on the Cable News Network (CNN) and 
other news media suggesting the heroics of our men. Somehow 
they are not recognized.
    I just received a report that in all the time we have been 
there two Silver Stars and nine Bronze Stars with V's have been 
issued and about 10 Purple Hearts. I think it is very important 
that due recognition be made, not just by word but by awards 
and decorations. Similarly, I think these awards and 
decorations would have a salutary impact, not on the Government 
Issue's (GI's), but among the people, their parents, their 
brothers and sisters. They want to know that their loved ones 
are involved and doing their gung-ho work.
    So are we doing anything like this, General?
    General Shinseki. I have offered to the Secretary a 
recommendation, for example, that beyond the individual awards, 
which is within the service's responsibility to recognize 
individual performance, the awards you spoke about, Silver 
Stars, Bronze Stars--you are correct there is not a campaign 
medal and I think, appropriately so, that discussion will be 
undertaken.
    Within the Army, I have offered to the Secretary a 
recommendation that, because of the combat that is going on in 
Afghanistan, that the units who serve there--as you know, in 
the Army we have the tradition, you wear your unit patch on 
your left shoulder, but if you go to war with that unit you 
move that unit's designation and you wear it on the right 
shoulder sleeve as demonstration that you fought in combat with 
that organization.
    That recommendation is before the Secretary for him to 
consider and I expect that that will be approved. But, 
appropriately, a campaign ribbon for this operation is 
something we will consider.

             STATUS OF INTERIM BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS (IBCT)

    Senator Inouye. General Shinseki, your plans call for six 
Interim Brigade Combat Teams with the armored vehicles, interim 
armored vehicles (IAV's). Can you give us a status report of 
that?
    General Shinseki. Yes, sir. We have set aside funding for 
six brigades, as you indicated, the two initial at Fort Lewis, 
one in Alaska, one in Hawaii, one at Fort Polk, and then one 
with the very important effort with the National Guard, the 
56th Brigade out of Pennsylvania. The way these were organized 
was a look at a strategic environment that described a movement 
from Eurocentric issues and a movement towards challenges in 
the Pacific Basin.
    So if you look at how we organized the allocation of those 
six brigades, four of them are focused on the Pacific, and yet 
they are located adjacent to strategic deployment airfields 
where they can be picked up and moved in a variety of 
directions. As I am reminded from time to time, sitting in 
Alaska, that brigade is actually closer to Saudi Arabia than it 
is sitting at Fort Bragg. So the locations were key.
    As sometimes happens when we set about changing a direction 
and creating new requirements, as we have in these brigades, we 
do very well at the training and the operation and maintenance 
(O&M) pieces and it takes us a little while to knit together 
the rest of the programs that would allow us to ensure that 
when these brigades begin to stand up at these designated 
locations that we have prepared the way in the vast array of 
other requirements, to include ranges, maneuver areas, 
environmental studies. All of that effort now is underway.
    The funding for that has not been fully marked and we are 
working on that now to bring those aspects in, which will 
include some discussion of military construction (MILCON). When 
the budget was submitted, these locations were not clearly 
identified. So there is some work left to be done, some issues 
to be addressed.
    We have been asked to look at perhaps a brigade of this 
type in Europe and I would offer to you that this brigade, an 
IBCT in Europe, we have equal contributions. It would be very 
responsive and have the kind of lethality that light infantry 
does not have today. That issue is one of affordability and we 
continue to study that, and there are some requirements for us 
to provide an Army position on that.
    Senator Inouye. General Shinseki, I have many other 
questions, but this is the last for this round. We have had 
World War I with a certain type of fighting and World War II. 
Then it changed in Vietnam. Now we have a very different type 
of war. Will your transformation to the Objective and Interim 
Forces enhance your ability to fight this new type of war?

                           IBCT CAPABILITIES

    General Shinseki. Mr. Chairman, if we had the Interim 
Brigade Combat Team today it would be the first unit of choice 
going into a place like Afghanistan. It would provide the 
mobile, tactical mobility, the protection of light infantry, 
the modern weapons platform, assault guns, all of which would 
have been very helpful here.
    But when it arrives, it will meet, in the interim, this 
requirement. This requirement is driven by the fact that, as we 
are structured today, the Army has tremendous capabilities in 
two fists: the great light infantry we have, the best special 
operators, the best in our Ranger forces, and light infantry; 
and then tremendous heavy forces, the great heavy formations 
that are organized around the M-1 battle tank.
    The challenge for our Army is that you can get in very 
quickly with your light forces and then you have to wait for 
the heavies to arrive. This gap in operational capability is a 
long wait. The Future Combat System is intended to correct that 
situation. In other words, we will be able to get in there very 
quickly with future combat platforms that will fight like the 
light infantry forces do today--rapid, deployable, on positions 
faster than the adversary can react--but it will also have the 
attributes of our heavy forces, which is lethality and 
survivability. These characteristics now are sort of separated 
into the different communities we have in the force: great 
deployment, rapid deployment in our light forces, but they lack 
the staying power that the heavy forces have. Heavy forces, on 
the other hand, tremendous lethality, survivability; it lacks 
the deployability.
    We intend with the Future Combat System to solve these 
problems.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you.
    Senator Stevens.
    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
    Let me apologize for this pile of paper up here. We just 
received an onslaught of mail from September, October, 
November, December, and I am trying to sort the wheat from the 
chaff here, but it is not too easy to do.
    I would start off by echoing our chairman's comments, 
gentlemen. I do believe that the concept of unit citations as 
well as sub-unit citations in view of the type of operations 
going on over in the Afghanistan area are very much warranted. 
I do believe, unfortunately, we are too prone lately to 
consider awarding medals to those who unfortunately have lost 
their lives, and I understand that. But there are just a lot of 
people over there doing a lot of extremely, extremely brave 
things and I think that they need to be recognized and the 
people at home need to know that we have recognized what they 
are doing.
    Too often, they would not even know about it if we did not 
call their attention to it, because we all know most of the 
people who have been in combat really do not talk much about 
it. My friend here, we have never really had a conversation 
about the day that he ended up in the hospital and yet we have 
been together for over 32 years. So it is just one of those 
things.
    You learn about it when you read the citation. It is up to 
you guys to see that those citations get out there and get out 
there in a meaningful fashion. We had some conversations like 
this with your commanders in Afghanistan.
    Mr. White. We will do that. We will support that.
    Senator Stevens. That is a good point. Thank you.
    General, how long will you proceed now with this 
recapitalization of the Legacy Force and achieve the 
transformation to the Objective Force? How long will it take 
you to do that?

                      FIELDING THE OBJECTIVE FORCE

    General Shinseki. Well, Senator, the intent is to field 
this Objective Force before the end of the decade, so the year 
is 2010. But that begins the process of transformation, and as 
we are able to field the Objective Force we will take today's 
Legacy Force and begin to reorganize and re-equip them with 
objective capabilities and that will go on for some time.
    Senator Stevens. The Legacy Force is what we are going to 
be fighting this current war against global terrorism, am I 
correct?
    General Shinseki. That is correct. That is correct, and we 
will keep that force ready and maintained for the next 10 years 
plus. Even as we continue to transform, we will have to keep 
that force ready to fight.
    Senator Stevens. But the force that is over there now is 
the Interim Force, right?
    General Shinseki. The force that is over there now is the 
Legacy Force. It is today's force.
    Senator Stevens. It is the Legacy Force.
    General Shinseki. It is. The Interim Force, the Interim 
Brigade Combat Teams, will begin to be fielded the end of this 
year. As they arrive, you will find them on these operations. 
If we had them now, they would be in Afghanistan. We just could 
not get there fast enough, Senator.
    But the capabilities are real and we need them in the 
interim even as we are building this future combat capability 
by the year 2010.

                            ARMY HELICOPTERS

    Senator Stevens. Shifting gears now to helicopters, we are 
all unfortunately familiar with the stories that are coming in 
about the loss of helicopters. Our budget before us now asks 
for $912 million for the Comanche. That is a significant 
increase. There does not seem to be much to replace the 
Blackhawks or the other helicopters that have been and are 
being lost now.
    Is there a problem about immediate replacement or assets 
that will be needed before we can get the Comanches delivered?
    General Shinseki. Senator, any time we encounter combat 
damages we do have to replace those aircraft. Yes, those 
requirements get stated and we fix them through your help.
    Senator Stevens. Will we see those numbers for the 
supplemental?
    General Shinseki. You will.
    Senator Stevens. Are you seeking money in the supplemental 
for that?
    General Shinseki. Absolutely.
    Senator Stevens. Okay.
    General Shinseki. Absolutely, for the combat damages. For 
the Comanche, it is a major Army program and I would say, 
looking at the fighting that is going on in places like 
Afghanistan today and the fact that you have got attack 
helicopters that are flying at very low altitudes right into 
the teeth of strafing fire and dealing with providing fires to 
the troops on the ground, we very much need Comanche.
    Senator Stevens. Well, we are very supportive of Comanche 
as far as I am concerned.

                  RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL CALL-UP

    I do not want you to misunderstand this question, but this 
week alone there have been three other Senators who have come 
to me and asked me if I have heard any comments from my people 
at home about the number of the National Guard people who have 
been called up and the impact on local businesses. I told them, 
yes, when I was home I did. I did not hear anyone say, Stevens, 
you have got to get these guys back, but they have asked, how 
long is it going to take and is this really necessary to have 
these guys called up for so long.
    They took it with ease when we were reacting to the events 
of 9/11 and I know we are trying to prevent, God forbid, 
another such event from taking place by having these people on 
duty. But what is the status and review of how long we can keep 
these people? You have a 90-day requirement, do you not? Can 
they be kept more than 90 days on active duty on a crisis 
recall?
    General Shinseki. Well, actually we have a 179 day.
    Senator Stevens. 179?
    General Shinseki. That is correct, Senator, for overseas 
deployments. Statewide, we have even looked at a year-long 
deployment, which is tremendous pressure. But this is driven by 
what the Secretary and I have testified to before and I have 
for the last 2 years, and that is an Army that is smaller than 
the mission profile it is asked to perform.
    Senator Stevens. I understand that. But when you see 
someone who really is a junior executive in a local business 
out there watching people walk through the gates to get on an 
airplane, that sort of strains it a little bit, I think. I 
think they have joined the National Guard and are participating 
in those activities in order to be available if they are needed 
to go overseas.
    Mr. White. I agree with that. The airport security was an 
emergency measure following 9/11. We have agreed on a plan with 
the Department of Transportation (DOT), which is standing up 
the Federal Aviation Security Administration, to pull the Guard 
out of the airports over the next 90-day period. That will take 
some of the pressure off the Guard deployment for non-
traditional types of things that the Guard is doing.
    Senator Stevens. Do you have a time frame for that?
    Mr. White. We should be done with that by the end of May. 
That will be a changeout between the new Federal agency, 
security people and the guardsmen in the airports.
    Senator Stevens. We can tell our people that the need for 
the call-up of the National Guard for duty such as that in the 
home Guard concept will be reviewed by May?
    Mr. White. That piece of it should be shut down by May and 
the troops will be redeployed.

                     SPECIAL FORCES TEAMS EQUIPMENT

    Senator Stevens. General Shinseki, as Senator Inouye 
mentioned, I believe, we met with an 18-man Special Forces team 
that had been operating in Afghanistan for 4 months. As a 
matter of fact, I was told I believe that they were out there 
in one stint 2\1/2\ months on one patrol. A superb job, a 
superb job.
    But we wondered about the equipment and their capabilities 
and whether those teams were designed to stay out that long. It 
seems like an awful long time for them to be out there. As a 
matter of fact, none of them spoke the local language, but they 
had been extremely successful in organizing and putting 
together Afghan units to conduct the battles.
    I wonder, has anyone analyzed really the extent of their 
equipment and what they need and what they had?
    General Shinseki. Senator, I tell you, we look at this all 
the time. We never quite anticipate the environment sometimes 
we end up with. The biggest challenge for light forces is 
weight. There are lots of things we can give them, but they 
essentially are foot-mobile and cannot carry it all in. So we 
give them what they need and then the challenge for us is how 
to creatively keep them sustained in terms of resupply, because 
just merely getting in there to give them resupply tips their 
hand if they are in a strategic reconnaissance role.
    So that is a little bit challenging. But we manage to do 
that with Special Operations platforms that can get in there in 
the dark of night and with no lights, run at high speed, and do 
a delivery.
    But the quality here, the important quality here, is not 
just the equipment. It is the quality of the youngster. When 
you think about, in small groups these young Americans--and 
they are mostly Army special operators, but there are other 
services with them as well--going into a part of the world 
where the leadership that was trying to oppose the Taliban 
could not get their act together. They just could not even work 
together.
    As you indicate, these youngsters went in there without 
firsthand knowledge of the language. Some of them spoke Russian 
so that they could--in that part of the world it is not 
uncommon to find a Russian speaker. So, communicating through a 
third language, were able to get them to put their forces 
together just enough to create a threat, that the Taliban had 
to then mass and they had to come out of the cities and the 
villages, move their equipment from being parked next to 
mosques and come out and confront this anti-Taliban force.
    When they did, our youngsters also had the skills to be 
able to bring in munitions coming off the B-52's and B-2's. We 
never envisioned them going into battle on horseback or having 
on their hips the international maritime satellite (MRSAT) 
communications device as being the method by which they were 
able to link this fight together. The creativity of that 
youngster is what brought all this together.
    Yes, we do continue to look at the kinds of tools we give 
them. But when they are riding 14 hours on horseback to get to 
the fight, most of us who have ever been on a horse, 14 hours 
is a long time, and you have got to do a lot of back management 
just to be able to stay upright. Well, these are tough kids and 
they dealt with that situation. I do not know what an Afghani 
saddle is like, but I know it is not like one of our westerns.
    Senator Stevens. We met with those guys and they gave us 
some pictures of that, and they are very proud and very 
capable. They reminded me of a conversation we had long ago 
with Colin Powell when he told us that he had been dropped with 
a team into Cambodia. I do not know if he has ever told you 
about it.
    General Shinseki. No.
    Senator Stevens. Well, his point to us was that they had 18 
days food and they were supposed to get a resupply, and on that 
18th day when you start eating the last of the food, that is 
when you know what it means to trust your Government. I hope we 
understand that, too.
    I have other questions, but again I want to tell you, that 
bunch is something else over there. I just wish more people 
could see it.
    I saw that movie the other night, ``We Were Soldiers.'' A 
hell of a movie. We took some of the people who were ``Band of 
Brothers'' survivors and brought them here and had a chance for 
Members of Congress to meet them. If you have got some of those 
survivors from that unit, we would like some time to arrange a 
little reception up here for them.
    General Shinseki. Sir, that would be wonderful.
    Mr. White. Great idea.
    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have 
a number of questions. It will probably take me a few rounds, 
Mr. Chairman.

 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) AND SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT 
                                 (SDD)

    While the Research, Development and Engineering Centers 
(RDEC) and labs have performed S&T 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 functions, the 
Program Executive Officer/Program Manager (PEO/PM) has taken 
mature technology from industry, RDEC's, and other resources to 
execute the SDD phase. However, the program executive office 
(PEO) project manager reorganizations, as briefed to you, Mr. 
Secretary, October 4, 2001, includes the following guidance: 
``A director for S&T''--that is a GS-16--``will be established 
in each PEO. This individual will be responsible for S&T 
objectives, transitioning programs from the RDEC's and advanced 
technology demonstrations, advance concept technology 
demonstrations. Management oversight of funding allocated for 
S&T activities will be the responsibility of each director for 
science and technology and elsewhere. Selected S&T funding, 
6.3, will flow through the director for S&T in each PEO.''
    I am concerned that this part of your organization plan 
represents a dangerous precedent and blurs the lines between 
S&T and SDD. Putting S&T funds under PEO/PM program manager 
oversight would invite, I believe, the use of these funds to 
supplement the chronic shortfalls invariably experienced by 
development programs.
    I do not believe the Department of Defense (DOD) is 
spending enough on the research and development (R&D) programs, 
remaining below the 3 percent funding target. With such a 
reorganization, I cannot see how fundamental Army S&T 
capabilities will not suffer even more.
    The General Accounting Office (GAO) best practices report 
points out the importance of demonstrating high technology 
readiness levels prior to initiation of SDD. We all support 
your efforts to transform the Army, but huge technology hurdles 
remain and I want to see the Army focus on supporting an 
environment to close the technology maturity gap that exists.
    The GAO report stated key to this environment was making a 
science and technology organization, rather than the program or 
product development manager, responsible for maturing the 
technology to a high technology readiness level (TRL). I agree 
with the GAO. I believe that the Army's organic labs and RDEC's 
are the right places to conduct fundamental S&T research and 
development. The movement of 6.3 R&D funding away from the Army 
RDEC's would not only marginalize them, but I believe hurt 
their ability to function.
    Several questions now. What is the status of this 
reorganization plan, Mr. Secretary? If it is proceeding, why 
are the history and the GAO wrong, and explain to me why you 
believe, if you do, that S&T funds would be better managed and 
spent by PEO's rather than RDEC's? Do you plan to request 
additional 6.1 and 6.2 funding to ensure that RDEC's have the 
funds necessary to mature technology to the higher TRL's? What 
regulations are in place to ensure that 6.3 funds will be used 
for S&T purposes and not to supplement SDD shortfalls?
    I know I have covered a mouthful.
    Senator Dorgan. Let me ask Senator Shelby to yield just for 
a moment, because I have to be at a 10:45 event.
    Senator Shelby. Yield for what?
    Senator Dorgan. Just yield to make a point.
    Senator Shelby. Oh, I yield my time.
    Senator Dorgan. I had wanted to ask questions about the 
Predator and Global Hawk with respect to intel and the use of 
that by the Army. I especially wanted to ask a series of 
questions about the high mobility trailers, which I have some 
difficulty about what is going to be happening there with the 
Army. I think what I will do is defer, perhaps submit questions 
to you, and call you, General and Secretary, on the issue of 
the high mobility trailers.
    Also, in this morning's newspaper there is a reference, I 
believe it is the Los Angeles Times, talking about the snow-
covered mountains and elevations of 11,000 feet where combat is 
occurring: ``Most U.S. troops are using cold weather gear first 
designed in the 1950's rather than new high-tech materials,'' 
and so on. If you might respond to that as well to see if there 
is any way for us to be helpful there. I do not know the 
veracity of this particular account.
    Because I have to leave, I thank you for allowing me to 
make those points, and I will be in touch with you about the 
high mobility trailers. Just simply, you are in the process, I 
believe, of a $250 million add on high mobility trailers, 
perhaps to be produced by those that produced previous trailers 
at 50 percent over cost and trailers that did not work and 
trailers that had to be warehoused. I will have some great 
difficulty with that. I hope that we can produce these new 
trailers through bids that are submitted by companies that I 
think can do a better job.
    But I thank you, Senator Shelby.
    [The information follows:]

                           Cold Weather Gear

    United States Army forces serving in Afghanistan and 
adjacent areas are not using cold weather clothing first 
designed in the 1950s. In fiscal year 1989, the Army began 
fielding the extended cold weather clothing system (ECWCS) to 
all high-priority units. ECWCS is a state-of-the-art, cold 
weather clothing ensemble that capitalizes on the technological 
advances of industry in the area of synthetic fibers and films, 
particularly polypropylene and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). 
ECWCS is a layered system that may be adjusted to individual 
metabolism and prevailing weather conditions. The ECWCS system 
consists of polypropylene underwear, polyester fiberpile shirt 
and overalls, balaclava hood, parka and trousers made with a 
three-layer nylon and PTFE laminate, intermediate cold weather 
gloves and boots. Initial fielding of ECWCS was completed to 
all designated units in fiscal year 1993.
    In fiscal year 1996, ECWCS underwent an improved design 
change called generation II ECWCS. The Army procured $7 million 
of the generation II version and fielded them to Korea as part 
of the low rate initial production effort. Ultimately, the Army 
decided not to procure the generation II ECWCS since initial 
fielding and sustainment costs of the system were prohibitive 
and the improvements provided no real operational benefit to 
the Army.
    In second quarter of fiscal year 2000, as the result of an 
$8 million Congressional plus up, the Army began limited 
fielding of a new ECWCS black fleece shirt and overalls 
developed in fiscal year 1999. These new items reduce the 
polyester bulk by 40 percent and serve as an insulating layer 
for the system. The ECWCS overalls were only fielded to units 
in Alaska because they are intended for use in temperatures 
ranging from -25 to -60 degrees Fahrenheit. The black fleece 
shirt and overalls became available through the supply system 
in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2001 and will be phased in 
as stocks of the older, bulkier fiberpile version are depleted.

                   High Mobility Trailer Procurement

    The Army is not spending $250 million in this fiscal year 
on the high mobility trailer. This year's efforts have been to 
field the trailers produced in previous years. None of these 
resources have gone to the prime vendor. In fiscal year 2004, 
the Army plans to execute a competitive re-buy procurement of 
the high mobility trailer that will alleviate the previous 
concerns. The Army has an acquisition objective of 25,112 
trailers.

    Senator Shelby. Thank you. I did not know it was your time. 
You can have it all.
    Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. White. To go back to your question, sir.
    Senator Shelby. Yes, sir.
    Mr. White. We have done a number of things on the 
acquisition side over the past 9 months, one of which is to 
bring all the PEO's under the control of the Assistant 
Secretary for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, the 
acquisition executive of the Army.
    The second thing we did was attempt to better line up the 
tech base with the PEO structure so that we get a better cross-
walking of technologies out of the tech base into the PEO 
structure. This is tremendously important with the Future 
Combat Systems. About 95 percent, I think, of all the S&T money 
that we have today is focused on bringing to fruition the 
Future Combat Systems. That is why we made that alignment.
    I absolutely agree with you that a strong and vital 
technology base is critical to the Army as we go forward. We 
are not quite at----
    Senator Shelby. We should fund that base, should we not?
    Mr. White. Yes, we need to.
    We are not quite at 3 percent, either. In some services--
the overall DOD objective is 3 percent and some services are 
closer than others. We, being a labor intensive service, it is 
more difficult for us to make it than others. I think we are at 
1.7 percent, 1.8 percent, something like that. But I am 
absolutely committed to a strong S&T base and committed to 
focus that base in a way that it produces things that we can 
transition into systems development going forward.
    The reorganization that you discussed is an attempt to 
better focus that effort, but not penalize the RDEC's that you 
referred to.

                   CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, I want to shift into another 
area. That is the chemical demilitarization program that has 
been going on, among other places, in Anniston, Alabama, area. 
I would like to hear your thoughts on the current status of 
these programs and what your plans are to make sure that the 
program does not receive the same distinction next year. That 
is, it was labeled by, the chemical stockpile emergency 
preparedness program (CSEPP) was labeled ``ineffective'' in 
President Bush's budget submission.
    You know we have been working together on this, too, and 
with Secretary Aldridge.
    Mr. White. Right.
    Senator Shelby. What are the Army's--well, go ahead and 
answer that part. What are you going to do to make sure that 
you do not get that same label again, in effect?
    Mr. White. Well, we have changed the leadership of the 
program. Assistant Secretary Fiori, who I believe has discussed 
this with you and Senator Sessions in particular for the 
Anniston situation, has put together a new program that 
accelerates this whole process. I am confident as we work all 
the details of that we will not only significantly reduce the 
risk that the existing stockpile represents, but the economics 
of it will be much better as we go forward. We are in the 
initial phases of that and we are having success.
    The specific situation at Anniston, of course, really has 
to do with sorting out the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) relationship with the State of Alabama. We on the Army 
side have given the money to FEMA to support the impact that 
this will have on the State and FEMA has to work out with the 
State the details of transferring our money to the State. I am 
hopeful that can be done shortly because we need to get on with 
destroying this material.
    Senator Shelby. But destroying it safely.
    Mr. White. Yes, sir.
    Senator Shelby. See, my concern and Senator Sessions and 
anybody else, I hope, is making sure that those chemicals are 
destroyed in a safe manner, because anybody, anybody living in 
that area, has to have concern and they do. We will continue to 
get into that.
    But what are the Army's plans, Mr. Secretary, for disposing 
of the secondary waste stream at each destruction facility?
    Mr. White. The secondary waste stream will be a hazardous 
material, as opposed to a chemical weapon material, chemical 
grade weapon material, and a hazardous material can be disposed 
of through normal commercial sources. We will make those 
arrangements and see that that happens.
    Senator Shelby. You are familiar, I am sure, Mr. Secretary, 
with the software problem there. I hope you are. One of the 
pressing safety items in the Calhoun County-Anniston area has 
been an upgrade of the emergency management information system 
(EMIS) software system. This upgrade would allow the local 
emergency management agency (EMA) to quickly and accurately 
warn the thousands of people who live within a short distance 
of the stockpile in the event of an accident, which we hope 
never happens.
    Despite the existence of EMIS, the Army accepted an 
unsolicited bid in 1993 from Pacific Northwest National Labs 
(PNNL) to develop a second emergency software system for the 
CSEPP known as the Federal emergency management information 
system (FEMIS), F-E-M-I-S. Forty million dollars and 9 years 
later, General Doesburg, the stockpile commander, said the Army 
will not use FEMIS because of test failures. The Calhoun County 
Emergency Management Agency agrees with the Army and is using 
EMIS, E-M-I-S.
    Funding to upgrade EMIS has been requested so that the Army 
and Calhoun County will have the best possible software system 
operating their emergency operation center's (EOC's). Last 
October, Under Secretary of Defense Pete Aldridge got involved, 
as you know, in the program and he has agreed to the software 
upgrade.
    This software funding problem has existed for years and is 
part of our concern about safety. It seems to be a huge 
conflict of interest there, that one of the people who is 
responsible for the issue in the Army had close ties to Pacific 
Northwest National Labs, the developer of the FEMIS software. 
In fact, as an Army colonel he was involved in the original 
unsolicited bid process. He then went to work for PNNL as the 
FEMA sales person after retiring from the Army and now works 
for Dr. Fiori. I think it is very discouraging to see these 
things happen.
    But the bottom line on Anniston, as you well know, is 
safety. We know we have got to dispose of these chemicals 
because they are sitting there and time is ticking. But we have 
to do it, and we have got to touch every little point to make 
sure that it is safety, because the people are deeply 
concerned, should be deeply concerned. If I lived there, heck, 
I would, and you would be, too.
    Mr. White. I absolutely agree.
    Senator Shelby. You know where we are coming from.
    Mr. White. Yes, sir.
    Senator Shelby. Okay. I believe my time is up. Thank you.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you.
    Senator Leahy.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Stevens.
    I want to welcome the Secretary and of course General 
Shinseki back to the subcommittee. You have done a great deal 
in preparing our men and women in Afghanistan and actually 
further afield. I compliment you on that. I suspect that 
neither one of you have nights where you get a full night's 
sleep as the reports come in.
    I have some questions related to land mines, which I will 
raise at another point, along the lines, General, of some of 
the questions you and I have discussed in our private meetings.

                     RESERVE COMPONENT AUGMENTATION

    Mr. Secretary, I want to talk to you about a situation on 
our northern border. The Vermont National Guard, among other 
Guards, are being sent to the border to help the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service (INS) agents and Customs inspectors. 
We have also put a lot of money in the budget to increase the 
number of INS agents and Customs inspectors. We have asked the 
Attorney General when that might happen. We had a vague answer 
the other day in the hearing, but I suspect a more specific one 
will come.
    In the meantime, the Guard is helping out. They are needed. 
Our Federal agents along the northern border are greatly 
overtaxed. We have a question of suspected terrorists, bombs, 
and damaging materials coming in.
    Now, these highly trained men and women are going to be 
prevented from carrying side arms for protection. That is like 
sending another Vermonter, John LeClair, onto the ice without 
his hockey stick. It does not seem to make a great deal of 
sense. If we are going to ask them to do this, if we are going 
to ask them to be on the border in this position, why are they 
not carrying side arms?
    Mr. White. Why are they not carrying side arms?
    Senator Leahy. Yes.
    Mr. White. Sir, the border augmentation that is a 179-day 
commitment that is just beginning, just for background it will 
be a Title 10 activation of the Guard. We will detail the 
guardsmen to the control of the Border Patrol, INS, and 
Customs, the three agencies that they will be committed to.
    It was the view of the Border Patrol, Customs, and INS that 
the nature of the duties of the guardsmen as they patrol the 
border would not require them to be armed.
    Senator Leahy. Well then, why do we need them there?
    Mr. White. Because these are people----
    Senator Leahy. Are they not going to be doing some of the 
same things that the INS and Customs agents would be doing who 
would be armed?
    Mr. White. In some cases, yes.
    Senator Leahy. Well then, if the INS and Customs agents, if 
we feel that there is enough of a threat they have to be armed, 
why are not our guardsmen armed?
    Mr. White. Well, the feeling of those agencies was because 
they would always be in the presence of an armed agent that 
they themselves would not necessarily have to be armed.
    Senator Leahy. That would be a lot of fun if I was out 
there saying that I am there because normally we might send 
four Customs agents, for example, because of whatever the 
threat might be, but now because the Customs agents are spread 
so thin we are going to send three unarmed guardsmen and one 
armed Customs agent, but now we will still have that same force 
of four, but only one will be armed.
    We have a very good border with Canada.
    Mr. White. Yes.
    Senator Leahy. They are our largest trading partner. I live 
an hour's drive from the Canadian border. We go back and forth 
all the time. The vast majority of people going back and forth 
across there are very law-abiding. But as you know, without 
going into classified items in this open hearing, as you know 
this has also been an attractive border to would-be terrorists.
    For the life of me, I cannot--my point is this. If you have 
got somebody who is fulfilling a role in an office, for 
example, where people are not armed, that is one thing. If you 
are telling them they have got to go out there and do the same 
thing that it is necessary to have an armed person, why are 
they not armed?
    Mr. White. Well, for that portion of the people that fall 
in the category that you describe, we have reopened the 
discussion on the arming versus unarming.
    Senator Leahy. I wish you would, because we have them armed 
standing by the screening devices.
    Mr. White. Yes.
    Senator Leahy. Probably a good idea because it seems half 
the time the screening devices do not work, although I have 
done my best to help the economy of this country, at least 
whatever company it is that makes fingernail clippers, by 
having to buy one every time I go through. But at least we have 
got the Nation safe from 61-year-old U.S. Senators carrying 
fingernail clippers.
    Mr. White. That piece of it is being reconsidered.
    Senator Leahy. Well, thank you. Would you keep us posted or 
have your staff keep me posted on this.
    Mr. White. Certainly.
    Senator Leahy. I have other questions, but I will submit 
them for the record, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
    [The information follows:]
                                      United States Senate,
                                     Washington, DC, March 1, 2002.
The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense, 1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, D.C.
    Dear Secretary Rumsfeld: We understand that members of the National 
Guard called to active duty to support the INS and the Customs Service 
at the Northern Border in law enforcement field positions will not be 
permitted to carry sidearms. We think it is a mistake not to provide 
adequate protection to highly trained people conducting a national 
mission. It defies logic that active duty personnel working in direct 
support of armed federal agents will be prohibited from carrying 
weapons themselves, especially as they will be in battle dress uniforms 
which will presumably make them obvious targets.
    That National Guard forces providing security at airports, the 
Olympics, and even here at the nation's Capitol are armed makes one 
wonder exactly how the circumstances on the border are so different to 
warrant such an extraordinary decision. Our only explanation is that it 
is the result of the Defense Department's puzzling unwillingness to 
call up forces under Title 32 and provide the Guard with maximum 
flexibility to support other federal agencies. Several Senators raised 
several concerns about the shaping of the Guard border mission in a 
February letter. We are enclosing another copy for your review. We hope 
you will address this situation quickly.
            Sincerely,
                                   Patrick Leahy,
                                           Co-Chair, National Guard 
                                               Caucus.
                                   Kit Bond,
                                           Co-Chair, National Guard 
                                               Caucus.
                                 ______
                                 
                                      United States Senate,
                                 Washington, DC, December 12, 2001.
The Honorable Tom Ridge,
Director, Office of Homeland Security, The White House, Washington, DC.
    Dear Tom: Recently, the Justice Department announced its request 
that troops from the National Guard supplement agents from the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service along the porous 4,000-mile 
northern border. We understand that the Department of Defense is 
considering calling up these troops on a federal, Title 10 status. As 
representatives of two border states, we would like the administration 
to reconsider the idea and call up the forces under Title 32 instead.
    Title 32 would allow more flexibility to accomplish this critical 
mission. Unlike forces called up under Title 10, Title 32 forces are 
not subject to posse comitatus restrictions. They can assist local and 
federal law enforcement organizations with its full range of 
activities, including arrests. Also in contrast to Title 10, Title 32 
forces can continue to train for other missions. As the National Guard 
remains the nation's primary military reserve, this status allows our 
nation's adjutants general the ability to cycle forces through training 
and remain ready for other contingencies.
    Title 32 also ensures that members of the Guard called up stay 
generally within their home state. Our nation's governors will remain 
in control, while Guard forces serving in their home state can bring 
unparalleled familiarity with the problems and challenges facing their 
communities. That understanding raises the comfort level of the 
country's citizens who might otherwise be concerned to hear that active 
duty troops from far away are serving in their community.
    There are certainly occasions where members of the National Guard 
should be called up under a Title 10 status. But in this case, it seems 
apparent that Title 32 is the more sensible approach. We would 
appreciate your considering this question and responding as soon as 
possible with your views. We are impressed with your contributions in 
the months immediately after the awful, events of September 11, and we 
look forward to continuing our work together.
            Sincerely,
                                   Patrick Leahy,
                                           United States Senator.
                                   Patty Murray,
                                           United States Senator.
                                   James Jeffords,
                                           United States Senator.
                                   Maria Cantwell,
                                           United States Senator.

                         CRUSADER AND COMANCHE

    Senator Inouye. If I may ask this final question of both of 
you. The problems of the Crusader and Comanche programs have 
become standard fare for critics of the United States Army. 
Almost every day there is some article in the paper. For 
example, the Crusader artillery gun has been criticized as 
being a cold war weapon by some, unfit for rapid battlefield 
combat and too heavy to transport. Some have said that the 
Comanche helicopter has been in development for nearly two 
decades and the program has been criticized for poor contractor 
performance, cost overruns, repeated restructurings, the latest 
coming at the end of last year.
    Now we have before us a budget request of about $0.4 
billion for research and development on these two systems, 
which is about 20 percent of your total R&D budget. Obviously, 
you consider these two programs to be very, very important. I 
would like to give you an opportunity to respond to these 
critics, if I may.
    Mr. White. Let me begin and then the Chief of Staff, I am 
sure, will also add his views.
    I view Crusader to be absolutely vital to the Army going 
forward. The Army that General Shinseki and I grew up in was 
always outgunned by its adversaries. The biggest mismatch that 
we ever had with the Soviets was the field artillery side. We 
have not fielded a new artillery cannon on a brand new chassis 
in this country since the early 1960's. That was the 109 
system, which is now in its sixth major modification.
    The weight of the Crusader was a concern at 60 tons. We 
have put it on a slim-fast diet. It will come in at 40 tons or 
less. It has tremendous range, rate of fire, and tactical 
mobility equivalent to the Abrams. In fact, it will have a 
common engine with the Abrams. And it is C-17 transportable. 
You can get two of them or one of them and an ammo resupply 
vehicle in a C-17.
    If we had it in Afghanistan today combined with the Q-37 
counterbattery radar, we would not have to worry about the 
mortars that have been causing casualties in the 10th Mountain 
and the 101st on that battlefield. It will be a tremendous 
counterfire capability. So I am four-square behind Crusader.
    Comanche in its 20 years, as you point out, has suffered 
from every known disease to a development program, from 
migrating requirements to less than stellar contractor support 
to uneven funding. Our commitment, the Chief's and I, is to get 
the program focused on producing a block one, an armed 
replacement for Kiowa, which is what we must have. Kiowa has 
been in the fleet since Vietnam. Second, rearrange the 
contractors into a more efficient operation. We have done that. 
Third, fund the program and get it fielded, and we intend to do 
just exactly that.
    We are going through a Defense Acquisition Board review of 
Comanche. That will be done in May. But this is a 
transformational system and we must get this thing fielded.
    Senator Inouye. Chief?
    General Shinseki. I would just add, Mr. Chairman, the 
descriptions of Crusader being a cold war relic has primarily 
to do with weight. What is also true about cold war artillery 
was it could not move very fast, it did not keep up with our 
maneuver forces, with our M-1's and our Bradleys. So the speed 
with which we attacked was always driven by the speed at which 
our artillery pieces could keep up, which was not very good, as 
we discovered in Desert Storm.
    What is also true about cold war artillery was it did not 
have a very good rate of fire, it was not very accurate, and it 
did not outrange our adversaries.
    So we set about fixing that for all of the years in the 
cold war we lived, outgunned by our adversary. There is some 
truth to the fact that Crusader came in heavier than we wanted 
or had envisioned. But as the Secretary says, we have taken 
some aggressive action here to drive it back down to about 40 
tons.
    Would we like it to be lighter than that? Obviously. But 
there is a point in engineering by which, if you are firing 
long-range heavy artillery, the weight of the platform for 
purposes of stability and digging in trails and giving this a 
stable platform, you just cannot overcome the mechanics.
    What is not true about Crusader being a cold war relic is 
that we have downsized the number of people it takes to fight 
that system, down to a handful of soldiers, 7 to 10 down to 6. 
So there has been a tremendous reduction. We automatically load 
this. This outshoots now all known adversaries. It is a fleet 
platform that keeps up with the tanks and the Bradleys that we 
have in the offensive formations. It will shoot at a rate of 
fire that outshoots our adversaries, so that it can put 10 
rounds in the area, move before the return fire from enemy 
artillery comes in.
    All of the good things that we have designed in the 
Crusader are not cold war. These are breakthroughs in fires 
that we, the Secretary and I, have lived with. In all the 
briefings that we ever gave as young commanders that talked 
about how we were going to fight our formations, we could never 
solve the fires piece. We now have.
    One thing about Crusader that we are all wrestling with is 
the weight of that platform. But the Crusader is selected to go 
into our III Corps, the heavy counter-attack corps, which goes 
by boat anyway. So the majority of these platforms will be 
transported by boat.
    Having slimmed it down from 55 to 60 tons to 40 has 
accomplished this. We can put a Crusader on a C-5 or a C-17 and 
we can ship that gun where we need it. Because of its 
capabilities, two to three Crusaders will outfire a battery of 
guns. Four Crusaders in Kosovo would have put steel on every 
inch of that province, and that is the capability we have 
needed for years and, frankly, that technology is what we need 
to continue to develop so that in years ahead as we go to 
Objective Force capability we can transition this into to 
robotic systems that we are looking at.
    Crusader is as close to robotics right now as we in the 
Army have been in a long time. You have three soldiers sitting 
separate from the gun that can dial up and fire the gun and 
automatically load it. Whether it is 3 feet or 300 feet, same 
principles. We need to field the Crusader to leverage that 
capability.
    I support the Secretary's comments on Comanche. We need to 
field Comanche. We need to solve the problems that we have 
discovered here. With his decisions and bringing the two 
partners, the producing companies, into a relationship, I am 
confident that Comanche will solve the problems we have 
encountered to this point. We need to get on with it.
    If Afghanistan is any demonstration of what armed 
reconnaissance and close air support with heliborne platforms 
will require, we need to go to Comanche.
    Senator Inouye. Your Crusader, as you say, can keep up with 
the Bradley?
    General Shinseki. It can, yes, sir.
    Mr. White. Crusader will have a common engine with M-1. The 
new Abrams engine will be the same one as in the Crusader.
    Senator Inouye. Well, I am hoping and praying with you, 
because I think that this is the new weapons system we need for 
the new wars. As you pointed out, if we had the Crusader there 
at this moment many of the problems we seem to face may have 
been avoided.

                           AFGHANISTAN UPDATE

    My very last question: Can you give us an update as to what 
is happening in Afghanistan right now?
    General Shinseki. Sir, I will do the best I can. I have 
just returned this morning from Europe and I know there has 
been a lot of coverage in the press, so I am not sure exactly 
what you have been provided.
    But I think you know that for some time there has been 
evidence that there has been a group of folks moving in and 
around the area. We have frankly been trying to pin them down. 
We finally have, and in doing so we have put large conventional 
forces in. This is why you see the 101st and the 10th Mountain 
involved in sealing off this area, along with other U.S. 
Special Operations formations, as well as allies.
    Having sealed that area off where this force is not able to 
bleed its way out of a piece of terrain, they are now fixed in 
this Shahikot Valley and we have begun the process of 
eliminating them. Pretty good sized numbers. Exactly, numbers 
vary from report to report, frankly because they do not all 
show themselves at once. They have perfected the technique of 
firing on us with mortars and small arms fires, rocket 
propelled grenade's (RPG's), and then ducking back into holes 
that have been prepared for decades that go underground. Then 
we will bring fires on their position, and as soon as the fire 
is lifted they come back up. They are pretty savvy about how to 
do that.
    So as we occupy positions--I think there are seven or eight 
positions that we were to occupy. We got into the first six and 
then ran into their locations, and we have been now for 4 days 
in the thick of it. They are taking casualties in large 
numbers, but there are sufficient left that there is a good 
tough fight going on.
    There are stories of heroism that will come out eventually, 
but tremendous youngsters that have done the tough fighting. 
Ultimately, after you have delivered all the fires you can, if 
they are determined to resist then you are just going to have 
to get in the holes with them and root them out. This has been 
true for every combat operation this Army has been in for as 
far back as any of us can read the history.
    This will be resolved. We will get it done. The tremendous 
youngsters that you saw on your visits are the youngsters that 
are performing these tough missions and we are mighty proud of 
them.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
    Senator Stevens.
    Senator Stevens. You are right. We saw them. We saw them 
loading up and had a good idea where they were going. As a 
matter of fact, they are great.

                            MILCON FOR IBCTS

    I have one question and then a short statement. I asked you 
a little bit about the brigades. We are looking now at MILCON 
and for the Interim Brigade Combat Teams I am disturbed to see 
that under the Army's current proposed MILCON time line the 
initial operating capability (IOC) for the brigade team is not 
reflected in the request for MILCON. There is an unfunded 
requirement not only for Alaska, but for Hawaii.
    At each location I was told there is a $200 million to $700 
million training and maintenance facility requirement for 
readiness, training, and deployment, and that is not in the 
line. If it is not in the line, you are not going to meet your 
IOC of 2005. Would you take a look at that, please?
    General Shinseki. I will, Senator. I alluded to this a 
little earlier. When we stood up these brigades and identified 
where they were going, we could put training dollars and 
operations and maintenance dollars against the unit, but we 
have been playing a bit of catch-up because the budget submit 
went in and we could not tie all the pieces together. Most of 
that had to do with installation support, MILCON activities. So 
that is why you see them arrayed as they are.
    Senator Stevens. Well, the Alaska one is supposed to begin 
to convert in 2003, but there is not money in the budget for 
them to start that in terms of MILCON.
    General Shinseki. I believe 2004 is when we actually will 
stand that up. But there is a requirement, you are absolutely 
right, to begin that work even today, this year and next year.

                          PROTECTING SOLDIERS

    Senator Stevens. This last comment--I know Senator Domenici 
is here and others. I hope you do not misunderstand this, but I 
remember hearing here when we were talking about systems and a 
suggestion came from this side of the table to upgrade the 
Patriot from an anti-air to an anti-missile system. I am 
disturbed to hear today that we do not have right now an answer 
to those mortars. I would urge you to look at some systems.
    It is harsh to say, but six Predators cost less than one 
Comanche and they are available now. They can be bought by the 
end of the year. I would hope you look at the systems you need. 
I know that is Air Force, but those guys ought to be out there 
protecting their people in Afghanistan right now, unmanned 
aerial vehicles, and now they are capable of lethal response. I 
would hope that you would look at that, because it bothers me 
to think, after seeing the things we have seen lately in'' 
Blackhawk Down'' and'' We Were Soldiers,'' that we might be 
sending people out there without the ultimate in protection 
that they need.
    So if you need it you should ask us. We would like to work 
with you. We like to see you be adaptable to the systems that 
are available now that can get over there quickly.
    General Shinseki. We will. There was not the attempt to say 
that we are not having Predators available to the forces there. 
Having used it myself, I know the great capability there and I 
am sure that the commanders on the ground have access to it.
    Senator Stevens. Thank you.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby.

                          TECHNOLOGY MATURITY

    Senator Shelby. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
    General Shinseki, I just want to make a few statements, 
then ask you a question. Regarding the technology maturity gap 
that I mentioned earlier with the Secretary, I want to 
illustrate my concerns and ask some questions using the 
Netfires system as an example. The Future Combat Systems (FCS) 
concept is not viable without a precision standoff lethal 
capability against stationary and moving armor, as well as 
other targets, because no protection system has been developed 
to my knowledge that will allow an 18-ton FCS vehicle to 
survive a direct fire engagement with any main battle tank.
    Netfires is the FCS precision standoff lethal capability 
under development at the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency (DARPA). Netfires is an extremely complex and ambitious 
system of systems. It consists of two missiles: a precision 
attack missile and a loitering attack missile. They operate in 
a complex multimode, multi-link radio frequency (RF) network. 
Each missile is a node able to communicate with other missiles, 
relay aircraft, ground stations, forward observers, and 
vehicles.
    The loitering attack missiles (LAMs) have LADAR seekers, 
the precision attack missiles (PAMs) have imaging infrared 
seekers. LAMS can find targets for PAMs and loiter for up to an 
hour and attack targets themselves. In addition, Netfires 
operates autonomously--no man in the loop. This means the 
system must rely on automatic target acquisition and 
recognition.
    In concept, Netfires meets FCS requirements and would be a 
great capability on the battlefield, except the RF network 
which would be embedded in and part of the FCS command and 
control network faces significant technical hurdles in the 
areas of operating bands and required frequency bandwidths. RF 
data links of the type required are inherently vulnerable to RF 
jamming. Making them more jam-resistant increases the 
complexity of antennas and processors and problems with 
integrating them with the missile structure and aerodynamic 
configuration.
    This takes time and money and there is no guarantee of 
success. Netfires operates autonomously, as I said, and must 
rely on automatic target acquisition and recognition. But in 
spite of years of work, no acceptably reliable automatic target 
acquisition/automatic target recognition (ATA-ATR) technology 
is available. While significant progress has been made, 
particularly in the L-A-D-A-R, LADAR, technology, there is 
significant risk that an acceptable level of performance is 
still many years away.
    Netfires I understand intends the rely on the global 
positioning system to achieve the high navigational accuracy to 
bring the missiles in very close to the target location for 
better ATR reliability and to compensate for the low 
resolution.
    Netfires has been rated as high risk for demonstrating even 
a minimal capability without the network capability to meet the 
May 3rd deadline for entry into SDD. I believe this example 
that I have been trying to relate here is instructive and 
deserves our serious consideration and yours. Given the status 
of the technologies, how can the Netfires system hope to meet 
its May 3rd milestone for entry into the SDD?
    General Shinseki. May 2003 entry.
    Senator Shelby. Yes, that is right.
    General Shinseki. I think, Senator, you have given us a 
good summary and also described the challenges.
    Senator Shelby. It is not much of a summary.
    General Shinseki. It is what we wrestle with. Some have 
described technology like good wine: It takes time.
    Senator Shelby. It takes time.
    General Shinseki. Some of this will not be ready in May 
2003, and what we, the Secretary and I, have to lay out is a 
decision process that says that this will never deliver what we 
want, stop funding it, and do not put another dollar at it, or 
this is not ready----
    Senator Shelby. Or show where it will.
    General Shinseki. Absolutely. Or there is potential here 
and it is worthy of continued investment at some level, either 
at a very low level or at a modestly aggressive level. We are 
in fact putting in place these decision processes that have 
scientists and engineers, all the experts available to us. We 
have also looked beyond--you were talking about our RDEC's and 
our own labs, which have been tremendous performers in the 
past.
    Senator Shelby. It has brought you to where we are today, 
has it not?
    General Shinseki. That is correct.
    Senator Shelby. R&D. The Secretary alluded to that earlier.
    General Shinseki. That is correct.
    But over time we have also migrated some of our 
capabilities that used to be resident in the labs and they are 
out there in industry.
    Senator Shelby. That is where it goes.
    General Shinseki. What we have to be smart enough to do is 
to be able to vacuum all that information, see what is going on 
out in industry. We have pretty good indications from industry 
that they are willing to partner with us. Of course, it 
involves dollars. But there is international industry as well 
that have some S&T ventures that we are not aware of and we 
continue to try to find out what is out there.
    But for us it is about getting the technologies we need, 
having a mechanism that says this will be ready, and invest in 
it.
    Senator Shelby. Making smart decisions based on what you 
see.
    General Shinseki. That is correct.
    Mr. White. That is one of the reasons we are going to a 
lead systems integrator (LSI). It recognizes the complexity of 
piecing together components of technology with the relative 
maturation schedule, which is precisely why we are going to 
bring an LSI on probably tomorrow.

                   SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND

    Senator Shelby. General, in another area in a sense, but 
similar, is the Army considering dissolving the U.S. Army Space 
and Missile Defense Command (SMDC)? If so, what is the impact 
to the civil servant, military, since you are the Chief of 
Staff, contractor work forces, in my area Redstone Arsenal, in 
other locations where SMDC activities exist, such as Colorado 
Springs, White Sands Missile Range, Kwajalein, and so forth?
    General Shinseki. You asked are we thinking about evolving?
    Senator Shelby. Yes, sir, dissolving, and if you are----
    General Shinseki. Dissolving? No. I misunderstood you.
    Senator Shelby. Dissolving.
    General Shinseki. I thought you asked evolving.
    Senator Shelby. No, dissolve.
    General Shinseki. As far as I am concerned, the Army has a 
role in space.
    Senator Shelby. Absolutely. We have defended that a long 
time.
    General Shinseki. Yes, that is correct. And SMDC is our 
organization that----
    Senator Shelby. Is your key component there, is it not?
    General Shinseki. Absolutely. We do have an Army space 
program. It is hard to define what clearly today, what that 
role in the future is going to be, but 2 years ago we had a 
hard time defining what Army transformation was going to be as 
well. Just as important as transformation is to this Army in 
its ground responsibilities that is tied to this terrestrial 
globe, we do have a role for the Army in space, and SMDC will 
keep us in that discussion.
    Senator Shelby. You and the Secretary plan to defend that 
role, do you not?
    General Shinseki. We do.
    Mr. White. Yes, we do.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Domenici.

                 PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY-3 TESTING

    Senator Domenici. I do not have very many questions, Mr. 
Chairman, so I will move with dispatch. I just did not want to 
fail to come by and greet the Secretary and see you, General. 
Perhaps after we finish here I could talk with you about Walter 
Reed and what they have done to be helpful to this Senator.
    Could I ask, Mr. Secretary: The Army recently tested the 
Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) air defense missile at 
White Sands, and it missed its cruise missile target. What is 
the Army's plans for future testing of PAC-3 at White Sands 
Missile Range?
    Mr. White. We are going to continue to test it. We have had 
many successful engagements with PAC-3. PAC-3, of course, has 
been sent back to us for management from the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Agency at the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 
level. It has had many successful engagements. That particular 
one was not. The preliminary conclusion is because of some 
faulty settings and not any fundamental difficulty with the 
missile itself. So we are very bullish on the PAC-3 capability.
    Senator Domenici. Do you know when it would be deployed?
    Mr. White. I would have to get you that for the record.
    Senator Domenici. Would you, please.
    [The information follows:]

            Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Deployment

    The initial Patriot PAC-3 deployment occurred in September 
2001. This fielding was to the Air Defense School at Fort 
Bliss, Texas, and provided equipment for troop training. This 
year we are fielding PAC-3 to the Patriot battalion in Korea. 
Starting in fiscal year 2003 we will field PAC-3 at the rate of 
one battalion per year. This fielding schedule synchronizes 
with the ongoing Patriot recapitalization program which will 
provide the Patriot battalion with system equipment which will 
have been refurbished to zero miles and zero hours condition. 
The end result is a like-new Patriot battalion that is fully 
PAC-3 capable.

    General Shinseki. There are four tests, of which this first 
test was test one. The next test goes on March 21 and the 
deployment decisions will be driven by how these tests turn 
out.
    Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.

                        DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS

    I have long been a proponent, along with a number of 
Senators of directed energy and the weapons systems that are 
evolving around that. Just last month I visited a joint 
technology office that will serve the tri-services in their 
efforts to exploit directed energy applications. That is going 
to be in my home city of Albuquerque as I understand it. This 
technology can play a vital role in making both our interim 
forces and our long-range objective forces more lethal while 
simultaneously reducing the risk of collateral damage, which I 
imagine you worry about every day as you look at Afghanistan.
    Could you please update us on the status of the 
negotiations with Israel with reference to the Tactical High 
Energy Laser (THEL) System.
    General Shinseki. May I provide that for the record, 
Senator?
    Senator Domenici. Indeed.
    [The information follows:]

          Tactical High Energy Laser Negotiations With Israel

    I fully agree with your assessment that directed energy 
weapons have a vital role in the Transformation to the 
Objective Force. The unprecedented success of the cooperative 
U.S. Army/Israeli Ministry of Defense Tactical High Energy 
Laser (THEL) advanced concept technology demonstration program 
was crucial in our assessment of this leap-ahead technology.
    The Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL) program will 
serve as a pathfinder to this advanced weapon capability. The 
MTHEL program will place the first U.S. high-energy laser 
weapon prototype in the hands of U.S. Army warfighters. The 
warfighters will use the prototype to develop the tactics, 
doctrine, and other warfighting elements necessary to integrate 
this new capability into the Objective Force.
    The MTHEL program will provide Israel an increased 
capability to protect its population, infrastructure, and 
forces from attack by terrorists or conventional forces. This 
capability is important at this time of heightened tension in 
the Middle East and may play an important role in U.S. peace 
initiatives for the region.
    The U.S. Army is engaged in informal discussions with the 
Israeli Ministry of Defense concerning collaborative 
development of the MTHEL weapon system prototype. The purpose 
of informal discussions is to lay the foundation for future 
formal negotiations and to identify areas to be given emphasis 
during those negotiations.
    The informal discussions have identified many areas of 
mutual interest and general agreement in principle. There are a 
few remaining areas that both parties continue to discuss. The 
current informal discussions will form the basis for successful 
negotiations that will enable the U.S. Army to collaborate with 
the Israeli Ministry of Defense in the development of the MTHEL 
weapon system prototype.
    The U.S. Army framework for the discussion is to insure 
U.S. national security interests are protected and to insure 
compliance with U.S. laws and policies. The U.S. Army is 
committed to resolve any issue that may arise in the current 
informal discussions or future formal negotiations and to 
resolve such issues in the context of this basic framework.

    General Shinseki. I am not as current on the negotiations 
with Israel. But as you know, we do have a very active THEL 
program, high energy laser program, and it is part of the 
dimension in technology that we are looking at for future 
combat capability.
    Senator Domenici. My last question has to do with how you 
intend to pursue directed energy, so let me ask, how will the 
Army synchronize the development of directed energy weapons 
with your Future Combat System concept? I assume it would 
surely, at least at this stage, be a part of that.
    Mr. White. It is.
    Senator Domenici. Who wants to do that?
    General Shinseki. I would tell you that we are looking at a 
broad range of technologies and all I can tell you at this 
point is that high energy lasers and other systems are part of 
that look.
    Senator Domenici. What I am concerned about, and that is 
why I asked how are you going to go about synchronizing the 
development of the directed energy weapons as you put together 
your Future Combat Systems, is because some things may be ahead 
of others. Nevertheless, directed energy weaponry is surely 
gaining and getting close to a point where it ought to be 
considered as part of, clearly as part of the Future Combat 
System. I just wondered how you were doing that. Is my 
assumption correct?
    Mr. White. Yes, it is correct in that we view it as a part 
of the long-term solution here. The question obviously will be 
what is its state of maturity when we get ready to field the 
first block or will we pick it up in a subsequent block as we 
expand the Objective Force capability.
    Senator Domenici. I thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you.
    Senator Specter.

                          ADEQUACY OF FUNDING

    Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Armed Forces have distinguished themselves in the 
military operations in Afghanistan, and this is really great to 
see. There has been very substantial funding for the Department 
of Defense in the period that I have been here and, under the 
principle that you get what you pay for, we have been very 
pleased with your success.
    Are you adequately funded up to the present time to 
continue to carry on an aggressive war in Afghanistan, General?
    General Shinseki. Well, sir, I will tell you that this is a 
good budget and it allows us to address some long-term issues 
that were in need of attention.
    Senator Specter. Before you get to this budget, I am 
concerned about the existing budget. Do you have sufficient 
funds in your existing budget to carry on the aggressive war in 
Afghanistan?
    General Shinseki. Well, we spend about $360 million each 
month to address the war, the global war that we are currently 
conducting. That burn rate, if you will, probably carries into 
about April. But beyond that, early April, the Army will have 
to pull fourth quarter training money forward and begin to 
spend it on financing this war on terrorism, in anticipation 
that there will be a supplemental that will help pay that so 
that we can then return moneys to fourth quarter training.
    To answer your specific questions, we are good for this 
month and then I run into a cash deficit problem and I have got 
to start flowing money from the fourth quarter.
    Senator Specter. You may prefer to answer this in closed 
session or in a private conversation, but what is your strength 
and what are your resources, if the war against al-Qaeda moves 
into other quarters--the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia, or 
perhaps other places? Do you have adequate resources in your 
Special Operations to carry on that kind of a worldwide 
campaign that the President has talked about?
    General Shinseki. Not in the budget as we see it. We would 
have to be supplemented to address these unanticipated 
requirements.
    Senator Specter. With an increase in the budget of some 
$46.1 billion for next year, bringing the total budget to 
$396.8 billion, is there sufficient funding there to carry on 
the aggressive war against al-Qaeda, wherever it may lead?
    Mr. White. I think the intent in structuring that budget--
and Secretary Rumsfeld has testified to this and so has the 
Deputy Secretary--was that at $379 billion, I think is the 
total defense budget, that there are funds of about $10 billion 
in there that would assume that we would continue this war at 
least at its current level through 2003, and that is what the 
$10 billion was there to address, so as to make it more 
unlikely that a supplemental will be required in 2003 as it 
obviously will be required in fairly short order here in 2002.
    Senator Specter. Are you suggesting that you cannot 
anticipate the adequacy of this budget depending upon how many 
fronts you are fighting and that you may need a supplemental 
beyond this budget for fiscal year 2003?
    Mr. White. No. I think that the intent was to structure the 
budget to deal with the foreseeable level of effort that is our 
best estimate and the budget was sized accordingly. 
Consequently, there is a need for a supplemental this year. The 
intent was to organize the budget so that it would be far less 
likely next year.
    Senator Specter. The President has talked about the ``axis 
of evil'' and Secretary of State Powell made a statement that 
we are not about to go to war against Iran and that we are not 
about to go to war against North Korea. The noteworthy absence 
was Iraq. Do we have sufficient resources, General--and you may 
prefer to answer this not in a public session--in the Army 
Special Operations to carry on a military operation against 
Iraq at the same time we are fighting al-Qaeda in the various 
places now under attack?
    General Shinseki. Senator, I think any more detailed 
discussion would be best privately. But I would go back to what 
I indicated here just a few minutes ago. In terms of paying for 
the increased operations that we have right now, I am paying 
about, the Army is, paying about $365 million a month for these 
increased operations. At the rate at which we understand there 
is an inventory of funds available, that runs out in April and 
the Army would then have to be able to pay internally to keep 
whatever operations going, whether it is the current operations 
against al-Qaeda or any expansion.
    So there would be a requirement for additional funding.
    Senator Specter. You had started to say earlier, General, 
before I came back to my original question, that this budget 
would enable you to do some things you had wanted to do and 
planned to do. What are they?
    Senator Leahy. Well, I think, as I have indicated, this 
budget, there is a $10 billion increase in the 2003 budget. 
About $3.3 billion of that $10 billion goes toward health care 
programs. These are programs we have not been able to pay much 
attention to. Really, while it comes to the Army, it flows 
through the Army and goes the Defense Health Services.
    About $2 billion, $1.9 billion of that $10 billion, goes to 
compensation, which covers pay and allowances that together the 
services and this Congress has found a way to take care of our 
youngsters. About $1 billion of that goes to pricing, fact of 
life adjustments and pricing. But about $3 billion of that $10 
billion goes into programmatics, such as recapitalization of 
our Legacy Force that we have today, trucks, and about $900 
million into a variety of other small programs that, when 
brought together, come out to about $1 billion.
    So there are things that we have addressed in this budget 
that we have not been able to do in the past. After years of 
lack of attention, we will not fix it in a single budget, but 
this is a good move in the right direction.
    Senator Specter. Thank you very much, General.

                      MILITARY HERITAGE INSTITUTE

    Mr. Secretary, the U.S. Military Heritage Institute at the 
Carlisle Barracks has been waiting for the Army to award a 
contract to begin construction of the first building. The 
funding has been set forth in the initial proposals and we have 
appropriated $500,000 in the fiscal year 2002 MILCON 
appropriation bill for the next phase. They had scheduled the 
groundbreaking for November. They are still standing around in 
Carlisle waiting to do the spade work.
    When do you anticipate awarding a contract for the project?
    Mr. White. Well, I will check for the record, but my 
commitment when you and I talked about this before was that we 
were going to keep this on schedule and that is my intent. I 
was just up there last month. I will check into it, but it will 
happen.
    Senator Specter. Okay. Please let me know.
    Mr. White. I will do that.
    Senator Specter. I would appreciate it. My phone rings off 
the hook on that red line from Carlisle.
    Mr. White. If I can get you to agree to show up, I will be 
there as well.
    [The information follows:]

                      Military Heritage Institute

    Because the project's requests for proposal were over the 
program amount, the Corps of Engineers and Department of the 
Army had to obtain approval for additional funds and authority 
to award the contract. Department of the Army is working this 
proposal to resolve the funding issue, and we anticipate 
contract approval soon.

    Senator Specter. Okay. One final question about a State 
interest. The Paladin howitzer, which is manufactured in my 
State obviously, has been endorsed for acquisition by the Army 
National Guard. This may not be on the top of your agenda, but 
if you could take a look at that and give me a response in 
writing I would appreciate it.
    Mr. White. I will do that.
    [The information follows:]

                Army National Guard Paladin Acquisition

    There are three Army National Guard (ARNG) unit groupings 
that are Paladin claimants--the Enhanced Brigades, Corps 
Artillery, and National Guard Divisions. Paladins have been 
provided, either by procurement or cascading from restructured 
active Army force units, for all Army National Guard Enhanced 
Brigades and Corps Artillery units. The Army National Guard 
Divisions are not equipped with Paladins.
    In November 2001, the ARNG requested that the Army provide 
Paladins to three selected National Guard divisions--the 40th 
Mechanized Division (California ARNG), 28th Infantry Division 
(Mechanized) (Pennsylvania ARNG), and the 49th Armored Division 
(Texas ARNG).
    The ARNG requested that the Department of the Army support 
the Congressional initiative for the procurement of 54 Paladins 
in fiscal year 2003. The Paladins were assigned as requested, 
and 54 Paladins for the ARNG were placed on the Army's fiscal 
year 2003 unfunded requirements list.
    When successfully completed, the program will provide 
Paladins for the three ARNG divisions. Any future assignment of 
Paladin howitzers to additional ARNG divisions will occur as a 
result of the cascade generated by the future fielding of the 
Crusader self-propelled howitzer.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Senator Specter. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions to 
submit in writing if I may. Thank you very much.
    Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, General Shinseki, I thank 
you very much for your appearance and your testimony this 
morning. We look forward to working with you in the days ahead.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
              Questions Submitted to Hon. Thomas E. White
            Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                            homeland defense
    Question. Secretary White, after September 11th you were named the 
Department's Executive Agent for homeland defense. What can you tell us 
about this role and will this be a permanent mission for the Secretary 
of the Army?
    Answer. The Secretary of Defense appointed me the interim DOD 
Executive Agent for Homeland Security on October 1, 2001. Along with 
this appointment came the responsibility to accomplish three major 
objectives: unification of homeland security efforts within the 
Department and development of the plan to stand up an organization 
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense which will serve as the 
Department's focal point for homeland security policy, planning, and 
resource allocation; develop operational solutions for the future; and 
enhance Departmental cooperation with Governor Ridge's Office of 
Homeland Security and other Federal agencies in regards to homeland 
security issues.
    The Secretary of Defense will direct the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense to lead a transition effort to establish a staff, at the 
appropriate level within the Office of the Secretary of Defense that, 
when established, will assume homeland defense and civil support 
responsibilities. The leader of that organization will then assume the 
responsibilities as Executive Agent for Homeland Security. Initial 
operating capability for that organization is projected for some time 
this summer.
                    military personnel end strength
    Question. The demanding personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) driven by the 
war on terrorism and the increased pace of deployments since the end of 
the Cold War has put a significant strain on the force and its 
families. According to your testimony, there are currently more than 
124,000 soldiers and 38,000 civilians from the Army Active, Guard, and 
Reserve stationed in 110 countries around the world. In order to 
maintain the force, to date has the Army been meeting its accession 
requirements in fiscal year 2002?
    Answer. The Army has met its accession requirements in all three 
components. For the Active Component, the year-to-date accession 
requirement through the end of February was 29,350 with 29,904 
achieved. The Army Reserve requirement was 17,008 with 17,194 achieved. 
The Army National Guard requirement was 25,132 with 27,150 achieved.
    Question. In addition to bonuses given to personnel with 
specialized skills in areas where the Army is experiencing shortfalls, 
is the Army considering targeting pay raises for personnel with 
critical skills, such as nurses, maintenance personnel, and pilots?
    Answer. The 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation did 
take into consideration the issue of pay banding for specific skills, 
but suggested more study was necessary.
                      army national guard aircraft
    Question. Secretary White, the Committee has been informed that the 
Army National Guard's entire fleet of OH-58 and Huey helicopters is 
slated for deactivation over the next several months. What is your plan 
for fielding the additional Black Hawk helicopters that will be 
required by the Army National Guard to replace these assets? How great 
a shortfall does this create, with only 12 Black Hawks included in your 
fiscal year 2003 request?
    Answer. The National Guard will have more than 270 UH-1s at the end 
of fiscal year 2002, 103 UH-1s by the end of fiscal year 2003, and none 
by the end of fiscal year 2004.
    At the end of fiscal year 2001, the National Guard had 520 UH-60s, 
with a scheduled end strength in UH-60s of 686. The Guard will receive 
between 103 and 141 by the end of fiscal year 2003. The difference in 
the fiscal year 2003 numbers is attributed to the UH-60s retained by 
the 101st Air Assault Division, which prior to Operation Enduring 
Freedom were scheduled to cascade in fiscal year 2002. The Guard will 
receive the balance of 25 through fiscal year 2009.
    The replacement aircraft for OH-58 A and C model aircraft in 
divisional cavalry squadrons will be AH-64s. By the end of fiscal year 
2004, eight AH-64s will replace the 16 OH-58s in each squadron.
    The OH-58s in the Reconnaissance and Aerial Interdiction 
Detachments (RAIDs) are operated by the National Guard, funded with 
counter-drug dollars, and sustained from the Army parts stocks. Once 
the Army's OH-58 parts stocks have been exhausted, operating costs of 
the RAID OH-58s will increase, perhaps triple, as procurement of spare 
parts transitions from the Army's OH-58 supply system to commercial 
parts vendors. The transition to commercial parts vendors will require 
either a significant increase in counter-drug funding to continue 
operating the RAIDs at current operations tempo, or a reduction in the 
hours flown. We have notified the Department of Defense of this 
concern.
    Question. Has any consideration been given to leasing helicopters 
to help mitigate the Guard's aircraft shortfalls?
    Answer. Yes, leasing has been considered as an option, but the plan 
to provide the National Guard with up to 141 aircraft by the end of 
fiscal year 2003 made leasing unnecessary. A study conducted in June 
2001 showed that leasing 30 UH-60s over five years would cost the Army 
$445 million, while purchasing the same number would cost $388 million.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                          composite materials
    Question. Secretary White, as you seek to develop systems that are 
lighter, yet equal or greater in strength and requiring less 
maintenance than current conventional systems, what role do you view 
composite materials playing in the Army's Transformation?
    Answer. Composite materials will play an important role in Army 
Transformation. Army laboratories are conducting basic research in the 
areas of advanced polymer composites and structures to create materials 
for Army-unique applications that are lighter and more affordable, yet 
provide improved strength, reliability, durability, and are 
environmentally friendly. These composite materials will be used to 
reduce the weight of the Future Combat Systems while maintaining 
structural strength, integrity, and system survivability. The resulting 
systems will be significantly lighter, more deployable, more 
sustainable, and more cost effective than current systems. The promise 
of polymer composites is based on their ability to withstand high-
impact forces, leading to increased system survivability.
    Composites will play a major role in the transformation of our 
aviation systems. We have invested heavily in structures science and 
technology over the last 25 years. Our initial investments paved the 
way for Comanche aircraft to be the Army's first all composite 
aircraft. The airframe on the #1 and #2 prototypes is more than 20 
percent lighter than an equivalent metal airframe. A recently completed 
Army Science and Technology Objective (STO) has demonstrated the 
ability to further reduce weight by an additional 15 percent as well as 
reducing manufacturing labor costs by 25 percent. This technology has 
transitioned to the Comanche program and will save weight on aircraft 
#3 and each subsequent aircraft. A new Army STO is starting this year 
and is expected to make further strides in weight and affordability 
while also focusing on the issues of survivability and repair.
    In the ground combat vehicle community, a major advance in 
ballistic hull and turret structures was successfully demonstrated in 
the late 1990s. Called the Composite Armored Vehicle Advanced 
Technology Demonstrator, the technology demonstrated a 35 percent 
reduction in weight over the traditional metal armor solution. For this 
reason, the technology has been adopted for incorporation in the 
Crusader howitzer and resupply vehicle turret and upper hull structures 
and will replace major structures traditionally made from aluminum.
    Composites in the ground vehicle community likewise apply to the 
wheeled vehicle fleet--a commodity which today remains largely metals-
based. Initiatives are underway to extend the Army's technology and 
experience from the combat world to the wheeled vehicle support fleet 
of trucks and trailers to achieve the benefits of weight reduction and 
enhanced durability. For future new trucks and trailers, the Future 
Tactical Truck Systems and 21st Century Truck are two examples of 
programs which will exploit the use of composites and pave the way for 
even broader applications of composites.
    Beyond vehicles, the opportunity for composites in Transformation 
is great. Support systems ranging from combat bridging to shipping and 
storage containers, even simple items like vehicle tow bars all derive 
significant weight savings from composites and support deployability 
goals for the future force.
    In the long term, I expect to see composite material technologies 
transition to most of our Objective Force systems through block 
improvements or major model upgrades.
                       foreign language expertise
    Question. Secretary White, in September 2000, I chaired a hearing 
in the Government Affairs subcommittee where witnesses described 
serious deficiencies in foreign language expertise among federal 
employees who work in the U.S. national security area. A recent GAO 
study, publicly released yesterday, identifies a 44 percent shortfall 
in Army translators and interpreters in six languages considered 
critical. The report also highlights significant shortages of 
cryptologic linguists and human intelligence collectors in a number of 
critical languages. Obviously, the war on terrorism presents a growing 
challenge in this arena, not only for the Army but also for other 
agencies that contribute to our national security.
    Do you see an urgent need to increase organic, advanced language 
skills? If so, how does the Army plan to meet this shortfall?
    Answer. Yes. The global war on terrorism has again demonstrated 
that even though the Army is prepared to meet anticipated challenges, 
we must have a strategy to quickly augment its linguist force to fill 
unanticipated requirements. As detailed in the Army Language Master 
Plan, the Army's strategy, currently being applied to the war on 
terrorism, is to rely on its existing linguist force in both the Active 
and Reserve Components, soldiers in non-linguist specialties who have 
the requisite language skills, and contract linguists. In addition, the 
Army has soldiers training in languages specifically to fill 
requirements for the war. Generally, the advanced language skills the 
Army requires comes from soldiers pulled from other specialties and 
contract linguists hired for their native or near-native level 
proficiency.
    Question. Secretary White, has the Army taken advantage of the 
language expertise in the DOD's National Security Education Program by 
hiring scholars or fellows from this program?
    Answer. The Army hired three individuals who have completed the 
National Security Education Program (NSEP), and the National Defense 
University hired five more. The vast majority of the Army's linguist 
requirements are for enlisted soldiers who begin their career as 
privates first class if they have a college degree upon enlistment. 
Individuals who have completed the NSEP are more suited for civilian 
positions that require a foreign language skill. The most recent 
information indicates that worldwide, only 330 Army civilians use 
foreign language skills in their jobs.
    Question. Secretary White, is the Army reaching out and utilizing 
language training resources in the academic sector and in the nation's 
ethnic communities?
    Answer. Yes. The Army routinely has soldiers attending college 
language classes, primarily for foreign language maintenance and 
enhancement. Few, if any, soldiers are sent to college language courses 
for language acquisition, as it is generally believed to require four 
years of college language training to achieve the proficiency provided 
by the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) in 
24 to 63 weeks. Language instructors are hired from both the academic 
sector and ethnic communities for initial acquisition training at 
DLIFLC and maintenance and enhancement training. Also, as noted in the 
recent General Accounting Office report, the Army has an aggressive 
program in place to recruit within ethnic enclaves. The U.S. Army 
Recruiting Command (USAREC) has soldier-linguists assigned whose 
primary responsibility is increasing the number of skilled linguists 
enlisting in the Army. They accomplish this through education of 
recruiting and Military Entrance Processing Station personnel, 
development of relationships at colleges and universities that have 
foreign language programs, and establishment of rapport within ethnic 
enclaves. These efforts will be greatly expanded beginning in October 
2002 as USAREC has documented a requirement for nearly 800 additional 
foreign language-capable soldiers to serve as recruiters.
                         hydra-70 rocket system
    Question. Secretary White, I am concerned with the decision to 
slash funding for the Hydra-70 rocket system in fiscal year 2003 by 
nearly 84 percent, at a time when our nation's front-line forces are 
deployed with these systems in Afghanistan and other countries. This 
seems to be inconsistent with the direction provided by this committee 
last year and could put combat readiness at risk. How does the 
Department plan to maintain the combat proficiency of aviators with 
such dramatic reductions in the procurement of training rockets?
    Answer. The Army has been asked to make tough choices to move the 
military toward Transformation. This is a clear example of where the 
Department has decided to move forward and accept risk by reducing the 
amount of Hydra-70 rockets procured and move toward rocket technology 
that will give the warfighter a low-cost, precision engagement 
capability that he does not possess today. The Army anticipates no 
change to current training strategies for the next two years. However, 
we are reassessing rocket strategies as part of a continuing and 
ongoing review process. This strategy is tied closely to the fielding 
of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS).
    Question. Secretary White, I understand that the rocket system 
which will replace the Hydra-70 will not be ready for fielding until 
after fiscal year 2006. How will the Army address the recapitalization 
of the 2.75-inch war reserve that is aging and less capable than the 
current production configuration?
    Answer. The Army will not fund the recapitalization of the 2.75-
inch war reserve.
    Question. Secretary White, I understand that the Army is the single 
manager for procurement of this vital munition for all the Services. 
Based on your decision to cut procurement of the Hydra-70 rocket for 
the Army, how will you mitigate future cost increases to the Air Force, 
Navy and Marine Corps who have increased procurement of this vital 
weapon system?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2003 President's Budget sets the stage for 
the Army's transition from the Hydra-70 program to the APKWS. When 
developing the transition plan, the Army attempted to address the needs 
of our sister Services. We understand that there will be a short-term 
decrease in Army requirements for Hydra-70 rockets to provide funds for 
research and development of the APKWS. In making this decision, 
however, we recognized that there are Foreign Military Sale purchases 
of Hydra-70, as well as Air Force and Navy requirements that will be 
filled. During the transition, the Army will remain engaged with the 
current industrial base in the production of both the Hydra-70 rocket 
and the APKWS because many of the components are the same for both 
systems.
                                 ______
                                 
           Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
                          senior dod proponent
    Question. I understand the senior proponent at DOD for Chemical and 
Biological matters is an Army colonel. The Army is the Executive Agent 
for all DOD in this area. I am gravely concerned that this is an 
insufficient rank to break through the bureaucracy in the Pentagon to 
ensure our CBRNE resource requirements are sufficiently represented. I 
don't think the Department realizes that if our forces are unprepared 
for the next terrorist attack, be it at home or abroad there is going 
to be an uproar if it is established that we knew about the CBRNE 
threat but did not respond sufficiently to counter it. Is assigning the 
rank of colonel to the senior DOD Chemical/Biological proponent an 
indication of the priority that DOD is giving to chemical/biological/
nuclear and radiological activities?
    Answer. Dr. Anna Johnson-Winegar, a deputy assistant to the 
Secretary of Defense, is the senior proponent in the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD) for chemical/biological matters. The senior 
military at OSD is an Army colonel who serves as Dr. Johnson-Winegar's 
deputy.
    Because of the priority the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and 
Nuclear (CBRN) program has come under since September 11, the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council recently approved standing up an interim 
CBRN Joint Requirements Office on the Joint Staff to develop the 
proposed organization charter and strategic campaign plan.
                    civil support team coordination
    Question. Our current state of readiness in the chemical/
biological/radiological and nuclear area is of great concern to the 
nation. In your opening testimony for the record you stated that the 
Army had ``trained and certified Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil 
Support Teams ready to assist civil authorities and had trained 28,000 
civilian first responders in 105 cities.'' However, the GAO report on 
Combating Terrorism, dated 20 September 2001, indicates that the 
National Guard Teams continue to experience problems. According to the 
DOD Inspector General, the Army's process for certifying the teams 
lacked rigor and would not provide meaningful assurance of their 
readiness. As a result the program schedule has slipped.
    I know we've got turf battles going on within the federal agencies 
and that our coordinating efforts need to be improved. It is essential 
the Department of Defense, and more specifically our military related 
homeland security efforts be coordinated with federal agencies and 
local and state civil authorities. Additionally, officials with the two 
agencies responsible for managing the federal response to a terrorist 
incident--the FBI and FEMA--continue to be skeptical about the role of 
the National Guard teams. Who do they report to? When are they 
deployed? And are they capable of effectively performing the mission in 
coordination with the other federal, state, and local agencies. Are you 
certain that the level of support and coordination between the Guard 
and the Army is sufficient to address the concerns revealed by this GAO 
report?
    Answer. Weapons of Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams (CST) are 
organized under Title 32 and, until ordered to Title 10 federalized 
status, fall under the day-to-day command and control of the respective 
governor (through the Adjutant General). If called to duty in a 
federal, Title 10 status, CSTs report through the chain of command 
established for deploying military response forces under the respective 
unified command. In both instances, the CST's primary source of 
tactical directives is taken from the on-scene incident commander--
typically a first responder from the affected area who has primary 
responsibility for the overall response and preliminary recovery 
operations at a suspected or actual incident scene.
    There are three circumstances under which CSTs will deploy. The 
first circumstance is immediate response. Circumstances which in the 
view of the commander are so obviously urgent that immediate action is 
required to protect life/limb/property and in which there is 
insufficient time to seek authorization from higher authorities. All 
commanders have the obligation to take decisive action in response to 
an obvious circumstance, while simultaneously informing their chain of 
command of the situation and requesting guidance or authority.
    The second circumstance is governor directed. The governor orders a 
CST to respond to incidents within their respective state or in 
response to a request for support from another state.
    The third circumstance is Presidentially directed. The President, 
in response to a governor request, or unilaterally, orders the CST to a 
federal status to respond to a specified incident.
    Since September 11, operationally certified CSTs have reported 
deployments 204 times. These responses range from full team 
deployments--such as extended operations in support of efforts in New 
York City to various suspected bio-terrorism events when required in 
less than full unit strength. None of these reported responses have 
been immediate response or Presidentially directed; rather, all have 
been the results of requests initiated by incident commanders through 
state emergency response systems. Of note, 22 of these deployments were 
undertaken in response to requests from states that do not have CSTs, 
whose CSTs were not yet certified, or in direct support of an 
operationally engaged CSTs.
    In every case, once approved/directed by the governor, CSTs 
responses have been timely and have been identified as valuable to the 
first responder community. The capabilities currently embedded within 
the CSTs support the mission to ``assess, assist, and advise'' the 
incident commander. CSTs are designed to operate in an ambiguous 
tactical environment--a scene that will by virtue of the very nature be 
chaotic, ultimately involving response elements from many agencies and 
levels. However, following response doctrine, federal assets will not 
be called upon until local and state resources are exhausted. Following 
this logic, CSTs will legitimately be engaged before the first federal 
response element arrives, but as a state asset. This has been the case 
in every operational deployment to date the CSTs have responded to. 
However, if a broad federal response was directed (either at the 
request of the governor or direction the President), procedures are in 
place to employ CSTs in direct support of the lead federal agency. As 
with any new capability, we will continue to refine both operating 
parameters, equipment, and training sets to ensure these teams remain 
both cutting edge and vital to the first responder community.
    The level of support and coordination between the Army and the 
National Guard on matters pertaining to the CST program is excellent. 
As an integrating force, the CST program has been effective, providing 
both a means and motive for further integration of the Active and 
Reserve Components. As a consequential benefit of the growth in the CST 
program, this factor reinforces the broader goals of the Army. Much has 
occurred since the GAO report you refer to was produced. First, and 
perhaps most significant, the Army leadership focused on this program, 
and as a result, an accelerated effort to train, equip, and evaluate an 
additional 17 CSTs resulted in certification in accordance with public 
law. This achievement represents an enormous accomplishment and was 
only gained through full partnership and cooperation across the range 
of the Army, as well as full support of the industry partners who 
support the Army's acquisition program. No shortcuts were taken. The 
compression of a nine-month process into essentially three months 
resulted from superior effort by all the contributing commands, 
agencies, and companies, not to mention the superb efforts of the 
states and their soldiers and airmen.
    In addition, the Army is currently conducting a Force Management 
Analysis Review (FORMAL) focused on the CST program. The FORMAL process 
directs and requires responsible staff and Major Command activities to 
participate and support issue identification and resolution. I 
anticipate that the FORMAL process will further integrate and 
institutionalize the CST program within the Army.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
                         future combat systems
    Question. I have followed, and my staff has recently been briefed, 
on the ongoing Army plans for the Future Combat Systems (FCS) and the 
transformation to the Objective Force. I have great faith in the Army's 
ability to maintain the integrity and readiness of the Legacy Force 
while simultaneously transitioning to the Objective Force. I noted your 
comments today regarding the importance of FCS in integrating the 
highly complex technologies and systems that will make up the 21st 
Century Army, and I applaud your commitment to this critical process. 
What is the level of funding for the FCS during the 2003 budget year 
and for the program years following this fiscal year? How will these 
funds allow the Army to meet the complexities of the challenge at hand? 
What is the time frame for the FCS program?
    Answer. Funding for the FCS in the fiscal year 2003 budget year is 
$303.8 million and totals $5,292.8 million for the fiscal years 2004-
2007. Funding for the FCS comes from both the Army and the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
    To meet the complexities of the challenge, the Army has partnered 
with DARPA for development of the concepts for the FCS. Our combined 
funding provides for the work on force concepts, requirements 
derivation, technology maturation, system integration, design 
engineering, and risk reduction leading to a first unit equipped in 
2008 and an initial operational capability of a brigade-sized unit of 
action in 2010.
    Question. Given that the FCS program is a joint Army-DARPA effort, 
could you elaborate on the role and funding level of each agency? In 
other words, could you elaborate on how much funding each agency will 
contribute and to which agencies, installations, or contractors will 
these funds be distributed?
    Answer. DARPA is responsible for execution of the Lead Systems 
Integrator Agreement through the Defense Acquisition Board for 
Milestone B, including technical, procurement, and security. The Army 
provides the overall technical support for the DARPA FCS technology 
program until transition to an Army acquisition program. The funding 
associated with the collaborative demonstration portion of the program 
is cost shared 55 percent/45 percent by the Army and DARPA over the 
course of the Memorandum of Agreement, which extends through fiscal 
year 2005. In the fiscal year 2003 budget, the Army provides $72 
million and DARPA provides $74 million towards enabling technologies. 
In addition, the Army provides $50 million and DARPA provides $48 
million toward the FCS integrated system of systems design. Each agency 
will provide $122 million towards a combined total of $244 million in 
fiscal year 2003.
    The Lead Systems Integrator team of Boeing and Science Applications 
International Corporation have several sub-contractors to include 
Strategic Perspectives, Inc.; Navigator Development Group, Inc.; 
Command Systems, Inc.; Parametric Technology Corporation; RedZone 
Robotics, Inc.; Krauss-Maffei Wegmann; and Cougaar Software, Inc. In 
addition, study contracts will be awarded to a number of industry 
partners in the areas of command and control, communications, 
computers, intelligence, sensors, reconnaissance, combat, and 
supportability systems by the end of May 2002.
    The DARPA program office is using the services of Booz Allen 
Hamilton, IIT Research Institute, Camber Corporation, Systems Planning 
Corporation, Schafer Corporation, Institute for Defense Analysis, Mitre 
Corporation, Systems Engineering Institute, CeBASE, and Commerce Basix.
    Other governmental agencies and universities involved in the FCS 
effort include the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) 
Requirements Analysis Centers, the TRADOC Objective Force Mounted 
Maneuver Battlelab, the Communications-Electronics Command, the Army 
Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, the Tank-Automotive and Armaments 
Command, the Sandia Labs, the Applied Physics Lab, the USMC Marine 
Expeditionary Force Fighting Vehicle Analysis, the United States 
Military Academy, and the University of Texas.
    Question. General Shinseki, my staff was briefed that Fort Knox has 
been designated as the Unit of Action Center for FCS within TRADOC. Can 
you elaborate on the role that Fort Knox will play in FCS and the 
Army's transformation to the Objective Force? What roles will the Army 
Staff and TRADOC have in the FCS developmental effort?
    Answer. The TRADOC commander has chartered the U.S. Army Armor 
Center and School at Fort Knox as the Objective Force Maneuver Unit of 
Action Proponent. They will lead the development and documentation of 
requirement products that TRADOC must deliver to support the Milestone 
B decision for the FCS in April 2003. The proponent will ensure all 
aspects of force development to include doctrine, training, leader 
development, organization, materiel, and soldier are addressed in the 
Army Transformation. The Unit of Action Maneuver Battle Lab at Fort 
Knox will work in concert with the Lead Systems Integrator, Future 
Combat Systems program manager, and the Army Staff to field the first 
unit of action by the end of this decade.
                       increased operations tempo
    Question. Given the increased operational tempo and deployment of 
Army aircraft, specifically Black Hawk and Apache helicopters, how does 
the Army propose to maintain sufficient readiness and safety levels as 
it transitions larger numbers of airframes from the Active to the 
Reserve Components? Specifically, units such as the 101st Airborne have 
faced increased deployment, combat damage to airframes, fewer aircraft, 
and increased flying time per airframe. How does the Army plan for such 
units to balance maintenance and safety needs for these aircraft while 
keeping up with frequent deployment and operations tempo (OPTEMPO) 
training schedules?
    Answer. The Army will move aircraft from the Active Component to 
the Reserve Components during the Aviation Transformation Plan, Interim 
Force. Although the numbers of aircraft in active units will be 
reduced, the number of mechanics will not, which should enable these 
units to maintain required readiness and safety levels. The Army will 
also increase the number of line pilots from a ratio of one crew per 
aircraft to 1.5 crews per aircraft in divisional AH-64 attack 
battalions and the 101st UH-60 air assault battalions to provide for 
increased operational capabilities.
    We have delayed the Transformation of the 101st Air Assault 
Division due to their deployment status in support of Operation 
Enduring Freedom. We were able to mitigate the loss of a CH-47D with an 
operational readiness float (ORF) aircraft; however, this will not be 
an option in the near future because aviation transformation will 
distribute existing ORFs to fill unit authorizations. The Army will 
accept some risk in our operational aircraft fleet until we implement 
the Objective Force with the addition of the RAH-66 Comanche aircraft 
into the Army inventory. In order to sustain readiness of our aircraft, 
the Army is aggressively working to fund our spares requirement. We 
have identified an unfinanced aviation spare part requirement that we 
are working internally within the Army and the Department of Defense. 
Support to our essential Army aircraft continues to be one of our 
primary goals.
                       chemical demilitarization
    Question. The President's budget request ranks the chemical 
disposal program as ``ineffective.'' Given the numerous delays, 
inconsistencies, and other problems that have plagued the Army's 
efforts to dismantle and dispose of chemical agents at stockpiles 
across the country, as well as the clear threat that these agents pose 
to the citizens who live near them, what steps has the Army taken to 
increase the oversight and accountability of the chemical 
demilitarization program?
    Answer. The Army has consolidated the management of the Chemical 
Demilitarization Program under the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
(Installations and Environment). The Assistant Secretary has extensive 
experience in managing environmentally sensitive and complex government 
facilities and programs. The revised milestones and associated costs 
approved by the Defense Acquisition Executive in September 2001 are 
incorporated into a new set of program requirements by which the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense and the Army will monitor schedule, cost, 
and performance of the program.
    The Army has accelerated the neutralization process for disposal of 
mustard bulk agent at Aberdeen, Maryland, by as much as 1\1/2\ years. 
The Army is evaluating a similar effort to accelerate disposal of the 
bulk VX nerve agent stockpile at Newport, Indiana, and will continue to 
evaluate options at other sites. This approach will save time and 
money. The Army will continuously review options for potential cost 
savings and utilization of resources, while ensuring the safety of the 
public, workers, and environment.
    Since the inception of the program, the Chemical Demilitarization 
program has had oversight from the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy 
of Science, and the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and 
Preventive Medicine. In evaluation of the Alternative Technologies and 
Approaches Program, the Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity has 
provided oversight in the area of testing, test planning, and 
operations planning.
    All major systems contracts awarded have implemented Earned Value 
Management System (EVMS) reporting requirements. EVMS provides the Army 
with insight into contractor performance versus the cost and schedule 
negotiated at contract award. With this insight, the Program Manager 
for Chemical Demilitarization (PMCD) can hold the systems contractor 
accountable for any indicators of negative performance before the 
situation becomes serious and can initiate corrective action.
    The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment) 
recently retained consultants who will provide advice on all elements 
of the program. They will participate in an advisory capacity in 
program reviews that evaluate and ensure that operations will be 
performed in a safe and environmentally compliant manner.
    Question. According to reports done by the Army, the Pentagon, and 
National Academy of Sciences, this risk could be eliminated much 
quicker and more safely if the weapons were disassembled and the agents 
neutralized. Why isn't the Army initiating this approach instead of 
continuing to proceed down the incineration path that has led us into 
this $24 billion boondoggle that is now predicted to be 20 plus years 
behind its original completion schedule?
    Answer. The Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program has beaten every 
destruction treaty milestone to date. The program has incinerated over 
1.4 million chemical weapons and over 16,000,000 pounds of chemical 
agent safely and without harming the public, workers, or the 
environment. The NRC has in numerous reports indicated that continued 
storage is the greatest risk to the public. Use of facilities that are 
already built and preparing for operations such as at Anniston, 
Alabama, and Umatilla, Oregon, provide the shortest path to eliminating 
that risk. However, where thorough investigation and testing have shown 
that an alternative technology can be as safe and effective, use of 
that technology is being pursued. As examples, the program manager is 
using alternative technologies for some activities of the non-stockpile 
product, and is employing the use of alternative technologies at the 
Aberdeen, Maryland, and Newport, Indiana, sites that contain bulk agent 
only. The Army is also evaluating a similar process at other sites 
containing both munitions and bulk agent.
    Studies and evaluations prepared by the Army and National Academy 
of Sciences, as well as other agencies, are all conducted with the goal 
of finding safer and more effective approaches for the disposal of 
chemical weapons. The PMCD uses the technology best suited for the 
disposal of munitions and agents at the respective locations. The PMCD 
is also working with the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program, 
where neutralization followed by biotreatment is being considered for 
disposal of the stockpile at Pueblo, Colorado. Public safety and the 
reduction of risk by elimination of the stockpile are the primary 
concerns of the chemical disposal program.
                           homeland security
    Question. Nearly six months since the Office of Homeland Security 
was created, there still seems to be considerable uncertainty about how 
to accurately define ``Homeland Security.'' Could you please discuss 
the Army's role in Homeland Security? What role, if any, will Army 
training facilities play in efforts to train ``first responders'' to 
terrorist attacks? Will facilities such as Fort Knox's Mounted Urban 
Combat Training (MUCT) facility play such a role in the Army's Homeland 
Security efforts?
    Answer. A secure homeland is a national priority and the nation 
depends on Army contributions for homeland security--a mission we have 
been conducting for over 226 years. The Army's homeland security roles 
and missions have changed over the years and will continue to change to 
support U.S. strategy. Since September 11, the Army has been providing 
more than 17,000 soldiers, in state active duty, Title 10, and Title 32 
status in support of increased homeland security requirements. In 
addition to providing increased security at our own facilities, 
homeland security missions have included providing quick reaction 
forces, increased security to key infrastructure sites, increased 
security at over 400 airports across the country, and soldiers to 
augment Department of Justice and Department of Treasury border 
security missions. The Army also recently augmented security at 
national security special events such as the Super Bowl, World Economic 
Conference, and the Winter Olympics. Currently, Army homeland security 
responsibilities include two components: homeland defense and support 
to civil authorities. Although not a result of the attacks of September 
11, the Army continues to support Joint Task Force-6, a multi-Service 
organization that provides operational, training, and intelligence 
support to domestic law enforcement agencies' counter-drug efforts in 
the United States. The Army supports computer network defense 
operations. In terms of future developments, the Army plays a 
significant role in the development of the Ballistic Missile Defense 
System, specifically in the development and testing of the Ground-Based 
Interceptor and radar as well as Terminal Phase systems.
    The Army's non-negotiable contract with the American people is to 
fight and win our nation's wars. The Army prepares for these 
traditional defense functions by maintaining a combat focus with 
trained and ready units to meet warfighting requirements.
    In addition to warfighting, one of the Army's core competencies is 
supporting civil authorities. The bulk of homeland security 
responsibilities reside with various civil authorities--local, state, 
and federal. The Army, including both the Active and Reserve 
Components, is uniquely capable of supporting civil authorities in a 
full range of domestic contingencies--a mission the Army supports 
throughout any given year in response to hurricanes, forest fires, and 
other crises. Much of what the Army has done in securing the homeland 
over the past six months has involved supporting civil authorities 
whose own capabilities have been exhausted or overwhelmed. For example, 
the Army provided specialized capabilities to support other federal 
agencies at disaster sites, and the Army is providing soldiers to 
augment several federal agencies in accomplishing border security 
missions. As the capabilities of civil authorities increase, or 
security requirements are met through other means, the Army can reduce 
its commitments. In the future, the Army may play a role in training 
civil authorities to improve their capabilities, such as those of first 
responders. In doing this, in addition to improving the homeland 
security, there may be a reduced demand for military capabilities in 
the future.
    Army training facilities, specifically Army live-fire ranges, are 
the cornerstone of Army training. Army ranges are built and modernized 
according to Army operational and doctrinal needs. Once constructed, 
however, a wide variety of federal, state, and local entities find our 
ranges to be extremely beneficial and schedule to use them. Range 
managers are committed to accommodating all reasonable range use 
requests.
    The Army has recently constructed a number of world-class training 
facilities that can provide extraordinary training opportunities for 
current non-DOD users as well as future homeland security focused 
training. The Fort Knox Mounted Urban Combat Training (MUCT) facility 
as well as other facilities designed for Military Operations on 
Urbanized Terrain (MOUT) is an outstanding facility for emerging 
homeland security training requirements. These facilities offer 
flexible, interactive, instrumented, and video-captured training in 
full-scale mock cities.
    MOUT/MUCT facilities currently operate at Fort Knox, Fort Polk, 
Fort Drum, Fort Campbell, and Fort Bragg. Two more MOUT facilities are 
being built at Fort Lewis and Fort Wainwright in the next three years. 
The current Army range modernization plan includes additional MOUT/MUCT 
construction and upgrades in the next ten years. The Army's continuous 
development of realistic, flexible, adaptable training facilities will 
certainly benefit emerging homeland security training needs.
                                 ______
                                 
          Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
                    gulf war illness (gwi) research
    Question. Secretary White, I am concerned that the proposed budget 
would slash Gulf War Illness research from $17.5 million to $5 million. 
This represents a 71 percent reduction.
    Given the recent advances in identifying the cause of this elusive 
illness, wouldn't now be the time to increase GWI research funding?
    Answer. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2003 requests an 
increase from $5 million to $10 million. This increase in funding is 
necessary to address newly identified post-deployment health issues and 
continue to expand on findings from the currently funded Gulf War 
Illnesses research program.
             army fiscal year 2003 medical research budget
    Question. Secretary White, while I am encouraged by the overall 
level of Army spending in the budget request, I am deeply troubled by 
the proposed cut in Army medical research programs. In the two largest 
accounts--Medical Technology and Medical Advanced Technology--the 
request represents a 16 percent cut.
    Upon what are you justifying this cut?
    Answer. The reduction in funding is best explained in two parts. 
The first part relates to the cessation of funding for research into 
militarily relevant, emerging infectious diseases in developing 
countries that was initiated through two program budget decisions 
(PBDs) issued to fund this research in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 
2002. The Army did not request these funds through its budget process; 
nevertheless, they were applied to address infectious diseases of 
military importance. The cessation of funding in this case is not 
perceived to be a cut since these funds were not part of our core 
military infectious disease research program.
    The second part of the reduction results from transfer of the 
oversight and management of HIV research and development to the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH). This action was directed by PBD 
203C that also rescinded funding for this defense program.
    The Army is in discussion with the NIH and is in the process of 
drafting a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to continue this important 
military research under their fiscal oversight. The military research, 
development, test, and evaluation program focuses on the non-clade B 
strains of HIV, which are not high priority strains for NIH but present 
a threat to our deployed forces. We expect minimal impact to the 
current program if the NIH agrees to continue it as planned.
    Additionally, we have a variety of vaccine research programs based 
in other countries with longstanding MOUs that permit specific research 
programs. HIV vaccine research, currently underway in Thailand, must be 
continued. Our MOU with Thailand allows for the conduct of clinical 
trials required by the Food and Drug Administration. After almost a 
decade of research in that country, a Phase 3 clinical trial for a 
promising HIV vaccine is scheduled to start this fiscal year. In order 
to begin a clinical trial, funding must be committed to vaccinate 
participants, monitor their health, and provide follow-up care as 
needed. Initial discussions with NIH have confirmed support for these 
ongoing clinical trials.
                           fort bliss--water
    Question. The fiscal year 2002 Military Construction and Defense 
Appropriations Bills contained $2.8 million for studies and planning 
and design activities related to a new desalinization plant for Fort 
Bliss. It is my understanding that the Army has not yet executed any of 
those funds. As the dwindling supply of potable water at one of the 
Army's premier installations is well known, I am puzzled as to why the 
Army would drag its feet on this issue.
    Why have those funds not yet been obligated?
    Answer. The Fiscal Year 2002 Military Construction Act provided 
$1.8 million in planning and design funds to support design of the 
facility. However, the design cannot be started until required pre-
design studies are conducted. Title 10 of the United States Code 
requires that all pre-design activities, to include studies, be funded 
with Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA) dollars.
    The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act provided $1 million 
in OMA funds for a Fort Bliss desalinization plant study and $1 million 
for a Fort Bliss water system pre-design study. This bill was not 
signed into law until January 11, 2002, and funding guidance is just 
now being provided to the field. In preparation of receiving the funds, 
the Fort Bliss Department of Public Works has made ready a Request For 
Proposal to have a contractor perform studies needed in conjunction 
with the disposal of the brine by-product of the desalination process 
through the use of brine injection wells. The Army will spend $1.8 
million to perform the injection well tests to determine the optimal 
location for these wells and to support permitting of brine down-hole 
injection process. The City of El Paso Water Utility group will perform 
studies to locate the production wells that would be required to 
support this desalination plant.
    We expect the OMA funding to be available to the installation in 
the late March timeframe. The brine injection well studies are 
currently estimated to take between 12 and 18 months to complete.
                          fort bliss--capacity
    Question. Secretary White, as you are well aware, large land areas 
for maneuver training are at a premium in the United States and, 
because of this scarcity, their use needs to be maximized. I'm sure you 
are also aware that the Fort Bliss/White Sands training area is the 
largest in the United States, yet there are no major maneuver forces 
permanently stationed at Fort Bliss. Do you see the movement of a 
division, or perhaps one of the Army's new Interim Brigade Combat Teams 
(IBCTs), to Fort Bliss to take advantage of this unmatched maneuver 
space?
    Answer. Fort Bliss is home to a robust array of U.S. Army Air 
Defense Artillery units, schools, and related activities. The Air 
Defense Artillery Center and School trains Army air defenders and Army 
leaders with a host of courses and facilities. Major units include the 
32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command, four air defense brigade 
headquarters and headquarters batteries, seven Patriot battalions, and 
seven maintenance companies. Several of these units were relocated to 
Fort Bliss after 1995 to maximize Army usage of the range spaces there. 
Air defense missile firing requires a great amount of range space to 
safely train under realistic engagement conditions and distances, and 
Fort Bliss is well suited for this mission.
    Both Active and Reserve Component units and personnel conduct 
extensive training exercises, mobilization activities, and support 
missions at Fort Bliss. Additionally, the Army staffs, equips, and 
jointly operates other U.S. government elements at Fort Bliss such as 
Joint Task Force-6, Operation Alliance, and the El Paso Intelligence 
Center.
    Fort Bliss, like all other installations, is being considered for 
future stationing options for different units. Each installation has 
its advantages and disadvantages in terms of maneuver and range 
availability, power projection capacity, and installation support 
capacity. Fort Bliss is currently undergoing some important upgrade 
projects regarding the fielding of the Theater High Altitude Area 
Defense System, and the installation will continue to meet the 
important needs of soldiers, civilian employees, and families.
                       u.s. army south relocation
    Question. Secretary White, I understand that the Army is in the 
process of sending evaluation teams to five or six bases to determine 
their suitability to serve as the new home to U.S. Army South (USARSO). 
Will the criteria these installations be evaluated on include: 
Proximity to an international airport with direct flights to Central 
and South America? Abundant spousal employment opportunities? Existing 
infrastructure capable of absorbing USARSO, without the need for new 
construction?
    Answer. The Army is not currently evaluating any locations for a 
future home for USARSO. The Army is, however, studying the necessity of 
moving USARSO and a decision is expected soon. If a decision is made to 
move USARSO, criteria will be developed and utilized in the process of 
reviewing possible relocation sites and in making a final selection.
                   family of medium tactical vehicles
    Question. Mr. Secretary, General Tommy Franks has recently 
testified on the need to maintain the Army's Combat Systems and Combat 
Systems Support base. He described several systems that he deemed were 
``of particular interest to the Command.'' One program he mentioned is 
the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV).
    I am told that there is an urgent requirement for $22.4 million for 
Low-Velocity Air-Drop (LVAD) version of the FMTV truck for a new 
Special Operations Support Battalion. As it takes eight or nine months 
to field these vehicles, should the Congress expect to see a request 
for these vehicles in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental?
    Answer. The Army has identified a new unfunded requirement (UFR) 
for conversion of the 528th Special Operations Support Battalion from 
its current standard cargo truck configuration to the LVAD 
configuration in response to evolving mission requirements. The Army 
had previously identified, funded, and filled 100 percent of its known 
LVAD requirement as part of the first five-year multiyear FMTV 
production contract with Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc. Since the 
known requirement had been filled, there was no provision in subsequent 
contracts for production of additional LVAD models. The $22.4 million 
UFR includes the cost of special ordering 81 new LVAD vehicles plus 
engineering, fielding, and training support. This requirement was 
addressed in the initial draft of the fiscal year 2002 supplemental 
request, but was not included in the final prioritized list. It will be 
submitted for further consideration at the next available opportunity.
                       army contracting officers
    Question. Mr. Secretary, it has come to my attention that the Army 
is once again moving forward with the consolidation of its contracting 
offices. Before embarking on this path, had the Army studied the effect 
the consolidation will have on small and minority-owned businesses?
    Answer. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy & 
Procurement) and the Director of the Army Small and Disadvantaged 
Business Utilization Office have worked together diligently to study 
the potential ramifications that may arise as a result of our 
consolidation efforts. One of our key goals is to identify new 
opportunities for small businesses to provide their goods and services 
to the Army. Our new organizational structure will allow the management 
team to better analyze data in areas such as credit card transactions 
to better focus our buying patterns to benefit the small business 
community. Likewise, it will be easier for the new management team to 
identify and set aside small business opportunities, all or in part, in 
many of our larger contracts as a result of our more effective 
acquisition planning processes. Additionally, we have reinforced these 
ideas in our concept and implementation plans and have clearly 
identified the need for establishing, monitoring, and achieving small 
and minority-owned business goals. The plans also identify specific 
duty positions within the new organizations for full-time small 
business program personnel who will be key players in ensuring the 
success of the program and achievement of our jointly established 
goals.
    Question. Mr. Secretary, has the Army determined if this decision 
will lead to more ``bundling'' of contracts?
    Answer. It is not our intent to increase the number of requirements 
that will be bundled. Instead, we anticipate that requirements for 
supplies or services, which are traditionally performed by one or more 
small business concerns under separate smaller contracts, will be 
maintained at the local installation level. If an increase in bundling 
does occur, our new organizational structure and management team are 
chartered to increase the opportunities for small businesses by better 
planning for the acquisition of these newly bundled requirements. In 
addition, by consolidating our larger contracts at the regional level, 
we anticipate that significant cost efficiencies can be achieved and 
that the utilization of small businesses will increase via set asides, 
multiple awards, subcontracting, etc. as these larger contracts are 
actually executed across the entire Army.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted to General Eric K. Shinseki
            Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                            homeland defense
    Question. General Shinseki, the Army has been integral to 
protecting our homeland since September 11th, how do you envision the 
Army adapting to this growing mission?
    Answer. In addition to providing security for the homeland, the 
Army is also meeting strategic requirements around the world, fighting 
a global war on terrorism, and continuing to pursue its Transformation 
objectives. The Army is preparing for the future through 
Transformation. Transforming the institution in bold and fundamental 
ways will posture the Army for its 21st Century duties. The events of 
September 11 only add urgency to our efforts to pursue Transformation 
objectives.
    A secure homeland is a national priority and the Nation depends on 
Army contributions for homeland security--a mission we have been 
conducting for over 226 years. The Army's homeland security roles and 
missions have changed over the years and will continue to change to 
support U.S. strategy. Since September 11, the Army has been providing 
more than 17,000 soldiers, in state active duty, Title 10, and Title 32 
status in support of increased homeland security requirements. The 
missions have included providing quick reaction forces, increased 
security to key infrastructure sites, increased security at over 400 
airports across the country, and soldiers to augment Department of 
Justice and Department of Treasury border security missions. The Army 
has also recently augmented security at national security special 
events such as the Super Bowl, World Economic Conference, and the 
Winter Olympics. This commitment, in addition to ongoing strategic 
requirements, puts a strain on Army force structure and resources. 
Currently, Army homeland security responsibilities include two 
components--homeland defense and support to civil authorities.
    The Army's non-negotiable contract with the American people is to 
fight and win our Nation's wars. The Army prepares for these 
traditional defense functions by maintaining a combat focus with 
trained and ready units to meet warfighting requirements.
    In addition to warfighting, one of the Army's core competencies is 
supporting civil authorities. The bulk of homeland security 
responsibilities reside with various civil authorities--local, state, 
and federal. The Army, including both the Active and Reserve 
Components, is uniquely capable of supporting civil authorities in a 
full range of domestic contingencies--a mission the Army supports 
throughout any given year in response to hurricanes, forest fires, and 
other crises. Much of what the Army has done in securing the homeland 
over the past six months has involved supporting civil authorities 
whose own capabilities have been exhausted or overwhelmed, such as 
providing specialized capabilities to support other federal agencies at 
disaster sites and providing soldiers to augment federal agencies in 
accomplishing border security missions. As the capabilities of civil 
authorities increase, or security requirements are met through other 
means, the Army can reduce its commitments. The capabilities required 
to support civil authorities are resident in existing Army structure.
    Although not a result of the attacks of September 11, the Army 
continues to support Joint Task Force-6, a multi-Service organization 
that provides operational, training, and intelligence support to 
domestic law enforcement agencies' counter-drug efforts in the United 
States. The Army also supports computer network defense operations. In 
terms of future developments, the Army plays a significant role in the 
development of the ballistic missile defense system. The Army 
participates in the development and testing of the ground-based 
interceptor and radar as well as terminal phase systems.
    Future requirements for homeland security are being addressed by 
emerging National and Department of Defense homeland security policy 
and guidance. As homeland security roles and missions are formalized, 
the Army will continue to assess its capabilities to ensure it can meet 
all its responsibilities within the overall defense strategy at an 
acceptable level of risk.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                 remote acoustic hemostasis technology
    Question. General Shinseki, hemorrhage has been identified as the 
major controllable cause of battlefield death. I am sure you agree that 
given the means, this is an area that we would like to see improvement. 
I understand that the Army Medical Research and Material Command is 
very interested in recent developments in Remote Acoustic Hemostasis 
(ultrasound) technology, given their promise to not only locate 
internal bleeding but also immediately cauterize visible or internal 
bleeding while the soldier is on the battlefield. This helps preserve 
life for follow-on medical attention.
    Do you have plans to incorporate these types of advancements into 
medical treatment variants of the Army's Future Combat Systems?
    Answer. New methods for hemostasis are among the many identified 
needs in our combat casualty care mission area. Remote acoustic 
hemostatic technology, packaged with imaging and telemedicine links, is 
one potential technology insertion for the medical treatment variant of 
the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS). The program manager for the 
medical treatment variant for the FCS, once identified, would certainly 
include consideration of remote acoustic hemostasis as part of the 
medical mission package. Active consideration will be dependent on the 
technology reaching a level of maturation that assures Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) approval for military applications and with 
critical design decisions for block upgrades to the FCS.
    Question. General Shinseki, if it were available, would you be 
interested in fielding this technology in support of current 
operations?
    Answer. Until the technology can be matured to the point it has 
received an FDA approval certifying that the device is safe, effective, 
and suitable for use in a field or mobile environment, the Army would 
be unable to employ it in support of current operations.
                  advanced army rapid emplaced bridge
    Question. General Shinseki, Mississippi State University and 
Seemans Corporation of Gulfport, are working with the Army to develop 
the ``Advanced Army Rapidly Emplaced Bridge,'' which is being made 
using composite material and technology. I understand that this 
composite combat bridge is 15 meters long and supports over 190 tons. I 
find it remarkable that even after failure it is still able to support 
a M-1 tank that weighs approximately 70 tons. This bridge is also 
transportable by C-130 aircraft and requires minimal manpower and 
equipment support. Considering limitations of bridges in your current 
inventory, it seems that this composite bridging system holds great 
promise to support your Transformation efforts.
    Can you provide an assessment of the need for lightweight, assault 
and support bridging in the near and long-term?
    Answer. As long as we have forces on the ground that must have the 
freedom of movement in the battle space to ensure dominate maneuver, 
there will be a requirement for both wet and dry gap bridging to 
support our combat and support forces.
    Currently, we have no wet or dry gap crossing capability for the 
Objective Force. We do envision the Objective Force having great 
mobility--this mobility will be dependent on intelligence and an 
embedded mobility capability. The Interim Force gap crossing capability 
is limited to a 13-meter bridge--the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System. 
This aluminum bridge is military load class 30 and is transported on a 
palletized load system truck.
    As we transition to the Objective Force, the bridging of the future 
will need to be compatible with these forces. They will have to be 
light enough to be carried and launched by the new vehicle as well as 
be deployable, transportable, and mobile to move with these forces in 
stride. A goal for the gap crossing capability of the future is to 
leave the system in place rather than the leapfrogging the assault 
bridging forward and replace it with cheaper support bridging. Doing 
this will potentially have a noticeable positive impact on movement by 
reducing time, task, and manpower requirements to support mobility 
operations. The technical challenge is to get the system cost down to 
make this goal economically feasible while providing bridging systems 
that can support not only the light combat forces, but also the follow-
on support forces. Our objective is to utilize advances such as the 
promising new materials that you referred to as well as investigate new 
launch techniques and transporting techniques.
    Question. General Shinseki, could you provide an assessment of the 
Advanced Army Rapidly Emplaced Bridge?
    Answer. By the Advanced Army Rapidly Emplaced Bridge, I presume you 
are referring to our 13 meter Composite Army Bridge (CAB). The CAB was 
a cooperative effort between the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency (DARPA), the Army, the academic community, and Seemans Composite 
to provide a technical demonstrator of a graphite composite bridge to 
examine benefits provided by advanced materials such as these. The 
single-piece, 13-meter bridge has been subjected to structural strength 
testing as well as live vehicle crossing using both the Abrams and the 
Heavy Equipment Transport loaded with an Abrams. It passed these tests 
wonderfully. It will soon enter durability testing to determine how the 
system will survive a full life of crossings. A follow-on effort that 
is also with Seemans Composites is focused on developing the joints 
needed to allow connections required to fabricate longer bridges that 
can be packaged and launched by future forces. In other words, to go 
from the single piece construction of the CAB to connecting multiple 
sections together to get a longer gap crossing capability which can be 
sized to meet the gap need. These connections, in conjunction with the 
launching techniques, are the key technical barriers to realizing the 
bridging of the future. This work is also progressing well.
                                 ______
                                 
           Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
                      chemical/biological training
    Question. Under Public Law 103-160 all Chemical and Biological 
training of the Department of Defense is required to be conducted at 
the U.S. Army Chemical School, which is located at Fort Leonard Wood, 
Missouri. As stated in the most recent (2002) Army Posture Statement 
``Tough, demanding training which is supported by an infrastructure 
that allows us to train, sustain, and deploy is essential to readiness. 
History has taught us and we have learned that in the end, armies fight 
the way they train.'' I understand that the number one unfunded 
priority for Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is an fiscal year 
2003 Military Construction (MILCON) request for a responder training 
facility for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) at Fort Leonard Wood. I 
also understand that there is pressure to reduce the current projected 
funding level from $15 million to $10 million which will ensure that 
this facility is insufficient to meet our emerging training needs 
before it starts! Already, Fort Leonard Wood trains responders for all 
four branches of the Armed Services to include the Coast Guard and its 
apparent that our future training requirements will only increase. 
Frankly, I think it is critical that we begin to ramp up our training 
resources in the critical area of chemical, biological, radiological, 
nuclear and high energy immediately. Our adversaries are not waiting to 
develop ever more lethal weapons. What assurances can you give us that 
this WMD responder facility is indeed going to be funded and at a level 
that will meet the growing demand for Chemical, Biological, 
Radiological, Nuclear, Explosives (CBRNE) training?
    Answer. Through Public Law 103-160, Section 1703, Congress 
established a Joint Service Chemical and Biological Defense Program 
(CBDP). The mission of the Joint CBDP is to provide world-class 
chemical and biological defense capabilities to allow our military 
forces to survive and sustain their missions in environments 
contaminated with chemical or biological warfare agents.
    With respect to this WMD training at Fort Leonard Wood, the current 
cost estimates depict a MILCON funding requirement for $13.5 million 
plus an additional equipment procurement requirement of $963,000 for a 
project total of $14.463 million. The project is currently ranked as 
TRADOC's number one unfunded requirement (UFR) for fiscal year 2005. As 
a new project, this requirement will compete for resources during the 
Army's fiscal year 2004-2009 Program Objective Memorandum build. We 
recognize the importance of homeland security as seen by the priority 
ranking from TRADOC for this fiscal year 2005 MILCON. We believe the 
need to establish a joint center of excellence for joint doctrine and 
training for WMD response is key to the Army's support of the nation's 
homeland defense and places this project in best position for 
resourcing.
             ah-64a and ah-64d (longbow) apache helicopters
    Question. I understand the Army has decided not to upgrade 203 
Apache AH-64A helicopters and I'm further told that the cost of 
maintaining a dual fleet of 64A's and 64D's is projected to be $1.4 
billion over the life cycle of the AH-64A fleet. The AH-64A is a much 
better aircraft than the Cobra that it replaces, but I'm concerned 
about the long-range ability of units that field the 64A to be an 
effective force multiplier. Pilots trained in the 64A cannot fly the 
upgraded D model without going through a lengthy transition course. The 
Guard will be the recipient of these 64A's, and I'm wondering what the 
long-term plan is for these aircraft that will not be compatible with 
their 64D counterparts? Furthermore, parts priorities for Guard units 
fielding the AH-64A will most certainly be at the bottom of the totem 
pole.
    Answer. The Army began implementation of the Aviation 
Transformation Plan in January 2002. This plan provides the strategy 
and guidance necessary to transform Army aviation from a Legacy to an 
Interim Force. The initial transformation plan changes from the current 
structure to the Interim Force and includes all components of Army 
aviation. The plan divested the Army of the Legacy attack platform AH-1 
Cobra reducing the number of attack helicopter types from three to two 
in the interim structure. Constrained by funding, priorities were 
established based upon modernization, Transformation, and 
recapitalization plans.
    The Army Aviation Transformation Plan cascades the most capable AH-
64A models to the six National Guard attack battalions and division 
cavalry squadrons. To reduce operation and sustainment costs, the 
oldest AH-64As are converted to the Longbows. This will establish a 10-
year half-life on the Apache fleet by 2010. Modernizing the National 
Guard divisions with the AH-64A enhances the Army's war fighting 
capability. Many of the National Guard units have aviators rated to fly 
the Apache A model. As with any advanced airframe, a transition course 
will be required for aviators not rated in the Apache. These training 
requirements were studied in depth. The National Guard will be the only 
Army component with the AH-64A at completion of the Aviation 
Transformation Plan. For this reason, the National Guard will conduct 
all AH-64A aviator training at the Western Army Aviation Training Site 
in Arizona by the end of fiscal year 2004.
    In accordance with approved plans, the Comanche will start 
displacing Apaches by 2015. While the fielding schedule for Comanche is 
not finalized, there may be National Guard units that will convert from 
AH-64A units directly to Comanche units.
    The AH-64A is a very lethal airframe to which no other attack 
helicopter, short of the AH-64D and the future Comanche can compare. 
Fielding the National Guard with the AH-64A provides the Army with the 
best attack helicopter capability affordable. As evident in Operations 
Enduring Freedom and Desert Storm, the AH-64A is a highly effective 
force multiplier. The National Guard will have three AH-64D Longbow 
battalions and the Army Reserve will have two Longbow battalions. The 
combined capability of the Reserve Component attack battalions with AH-
64A and D model Apaches provides a wide variety of combat capabilities 
to any war fighting commander in chief.
    Comparing the AH-64A to the AH-64D, the AH-64A will have 
approximately 20 percent unique airframe components of which the 
National Guard units will be the sole customer and the top priority. 
The remaining parts requirements will be resourced based on current 
operational priorities. The National Guard will continue to contribute 
to these operational deployments and when deployed, receive higher 
priority regardless of A or D model configuration.
    Question. Can we seriously expect to deploy AH-64A models in a 
combat theater once the Army has a full contingent of upgraded AH-64D 
models?
    Answer. Yes. The AH-64D is more capable than the AH-64A and offers 
digital connectivity, which the AH-64A cannot. The Apache Longbow may 
be the preferred airframe; however, as evident by current operations, 
the AH-64A will continue to offer the ground commander a combat 
multiplier. Once the Longbow fielding is complete, there will continue 
to be deployments where the AH-64A would meet operational requirements, 
as in Kosovo today. The AH-64A Apaches in the National Guard divisions 
provide the Army with a force multiplier capable of meeting many of the 
operational requirements in the future.
                                 ______
                                 
          Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
       future combat systems (fcs) lead systems integrator (lsi)
    Question. General Shinseki, Defense News reports this week that 
eight of the ten vehicles projected to compose the Interim Combat 
Brigade Teams are too heavy to be carried by a C-130. Yet the ability 
to be carried by a C-130 is an essential characteristic. I thought one 
of the reasons the Army selected an off-the-shelf vehicle, a known 
quantity, was to avoid such problems.
    This does not bode well for the aggressive development schedule you 
have laid out for the Future Combat Systems (FCS), which will form the 
backbone of the post-2010 Army. What steps are you taking to ensure 
that the FCS development program will yield a truly transformational 
system, while avoiding similar problems?
    Answer. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) 
representing the user community defined the required transformational 
characteristics for the FCS design. These characteristics are stated in 
the form of requirements in the statement of required capabilities 
(SORC). The capabilities will further be refined in the FCS operational 
requirements document (ORD) that will be used for the actual design and 
testing of the system. FCS will be tested to the ORD requirements 
before production.
    The Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) was required to comply with the 
SORC in their concept proposal for FCS. The Army, partnered with the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), selected the Boeing-
SAIC team as the LSI to assist the Army in building FCS by the end of 
this decade. The LSI provides the integrating function of this complex 
system-of-systems approach to field an FCS-equipped Objective Force. 
TRADOC and the LSI will collaborate to ensure FCS fulfills the user 
requirements and the Army's Transformation goals.
    Question. How will the employment of a Lead Systems Integrator 
(LSI), similar in concept to the one employed for National Missile 
Defense, aid in the management of a program that is critical to both 
the Army and our national security?
    Answer. FCS is a complex group of systems, roughly equivalent to 
the ``Big Five'' systems the Army developed and fielded in the post-
Vietnam era. However, as a system of systems, the key sub-systems of 
FCS must be integrated and fielded simultaneously within a complex 
architecture. While challenging, this is a transformational approach to 
new systems fielding. The FCS LSI serves as the integrator for FCS 
within all the systems' components and within the Objective Force 
systems' architecture. Our approach differs from that of the National 
Missile Defense in that the partners of the LSI were competed rather 
than mandated. By making a broad industry announcement and requiring 
that the system capabilities within the FCS use an open systems 
architecture between the sub-systems, our LSI approach maximizes 
competition and maintains the flexibility to integrate additional 
capabilities within the FCS as they mature. The Army's LSI approach 
enables evolutionary, spiral development acquisition to achieve 
threshold capabilities for FCS this decade while offering significant 
improvements as technology matures to ensure full spectrum dominance 
throughout the life of the system.
                   interim brigade combat team (ibct)
    Question. General Shinseki, Defense News reports this week that 
eight of the ten vehicles projected to compose the IBCTs are too heavy 
to be carried by a C-130. It is my understanding that the ability to be 
carried by a C-130 is a must-have characteristic.
    Has this requirement changed, and if not, what steps is the Army 
taking to ensure that these vehicles are ready to fight as soon as they 
roll off a C-130?
    Answer. The Army is confident that the Interim Armored Vehicle 
(IAV) will meet its transportability requirements. C-130 
transportability is one of the IAV's four key performance parameters. 
The IBCT project manager and the Military Traffic Management Command 
Transportation Engineering Agency (MTMCTEA) have worked together 
throughout the IAV program to establish requirements and address IAV 
design considerations that affect its transportability. The MTMCTEA 
also analyzed IAV proposals during source selection.
    Vehicle weight is only one transportability consideration. 
Operational mission, range and payload, axle loading, and exterior 
dimensions also bear on vehicle design. Weather, altitude, and airfield 
surface conditions may also impact operations. In total, 38,000 pounds 
is the allowable weight to fly 1,000 miles under normal operating 
conditions.
    All ten IAV configurations will fit inside a C-130 aircraft, with 
waivers for loadmaster safety aisles. The Infantry Carrier Vehicle 
(ICV) underwent a successful transportability demonstration at 
Selfridge Air National Guard Base on January 31, 2002. The ICV met day 
and night objectives for loadmaster movement within the aircraft, 
loading, tie-down requirements, evacuation, and offload access of the 
loadmaster and vehicle crew. ICV air transportability certification 
will continue with ramp axle load distribution verification and 
developmental testing beginning in April 2002. Each configuration will 
undergo a similar exercise.
    The Fire Support Vehicle and the Medical Evacuation Vehicle meet 
the total vehicle weight and the axle weight requirements in their 
fully loaded configurations. Seven of the remaining eight 
configurations meet weight requirements through cross loading of 
stowage items. For example, the empty weight of the ICV is 34,313 
pounds. The combat loaded vehicle weight, including the two-man crew, 
but not including the nine-man infantry squad, is 37,508 pounds. We are 
working to ensure combat capability upon arrival by reviewing vehicle 
hardware for weight reduction opportunities. We continue to review and 
prioritize removable vehicle equipment and stowage items.
    The C-130 can transport all of the IAV configurations. The Mobile 
Gun System (MGS), currently under development, requires re-engineering 
to minimize off-loading of equipment. An aggressive weight reduction 
program is underway and should be complete before the fiscal year 2005 
full-rate production decision. Worth noting is that the IAV's high 
degree of commonality will promote the application of MGS changes to 
other ongoing IAV production, increasing the effective combat load of 
all configurations.
                        lead systems integrator
    Question. General Shinseki, I understand the LSI contract is being 
solicited by DARPA. Does the accountability for this contract also 
reside with DARPA?
    Answer. The Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) 
retains the authority for this agreement through the remainder of the 
concepts and technology development phase of acquisition, currently 
scheduled to end in the third quarter of fiscal year 2003. Early in the 
program we saw several advantages in partnering with DARPA. Among these 
are the ability to leverage DARPA's culture of pursuing paradigm 
shifting innovations, the use of other transactions as a contracting 
mechanism to speed acquisition, and the ability to directly leverage 
DARPA's resources by obtaining their commitment to share in the cost of 
technology development. All of this is happening today. Aside form 
periodic program reviews with the Army leadership, we have also ensured 
coupling to the Army Vision by making key personnel assignments. The 
DARPA Objective Force program manager is an Army colonel and the Army 
has also assigned a brigadier general as the Future Combat Systems 
program manager to prepare for the transition of the Army and DARPA 
technology into the Army's acquisition program at Milestone B in 2003.
                              fcs and lsi
    Question. How will the LSI ensure that the FCS will stay relevant 
over time as technology evolves at an ever-increasing rate?
    Answer. By using an open systems architecture, an innovative 
approach to software insertion at the point of maturity, and a 
deliberate block approach to hardware upgrades, the Army and DARPA have 
contracted for the LSI to incorporate technologies into FCS designs 
based upon technology maturity, capabilities needs, and affordability 
criteria required for FCS. The Army will program funding for succeeding 
software and hardware upgrades to ensure FCS maintains technical 
performance dominance specified in the operational requirements 
document.
    army/marine corps cooperation on the future combat system (fcs)
    Question. General Shinseki, the fiscal year 2003 request includes 
significant funding for R&D activities associated with the Future 
Combat Systems (FCS). The FCS will form the backbone of the post-2010 
Army, the so-called ``Objective Force.'' It is my understanding that 
the Marine Corps is planning to field a similar force with similar 
capabilities, just a few years after the Army. Would you please 
describe what collaborative activities the Army and Marine Corps are 
engaging in to prevent duplicative development programs?
    Answer. During the concepts and technology development phase of 
acquisition, the Army has engaged the Marine Corps requirements 
community to discuss opportunities for collaborative programs at the 
system level of the FCS. Although the Marine Expeditionary Family of 
Fighting Vehicles does not have the same deployability requirements as 
the FCS, the Marine Corps is considering the value of FCS subsystems as 
potential derivative programs to enhance Marine Corps warfighting 
capabilities in areas such as lethality.
                    unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs)
    Question. General Shinseki, I note that the request includes $46 
million for UAV research and development (R&D). What capabilities do 
current systems lack that you feel must be developed if UAVs are to 
fulfill their anticipated role in the Objective Force?
    Answer. Fiscal year 2003 R&D funding completes development of the 
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle system (Shadow 200), begins selection 
of an extended range air vehicle compatible with Shadow 200 ground 
control equipment to meet Army division and corps level requirements, 
and improves Shadow 200 target location error. Funding is also provided 
for development of advanced electro-optical/infrared and synthetic 
aperture radar/moving target indicator payloads to give the extended 
range air vehicle an all-weather sensing capability.
    The Army envisions a family of UAVs directly supporting commanders 
at all echelons and across multiple battlefield operating systems. 
Shadow 200 will satisfy the threshold requirements of the Objective 
Force brigade-level commanders. However, the Shadow 200 system cannot 
satisfy the requirements at battalion and below and division and above 
for several reasons. Shadow 200 is too large to support battalion and 
below where the requirement is for a system that is man-packable, 
operates at a range of at least 12 kilometers, requires minimal 
training to fly, and can be launched from a constrained space. Small 
UAVs and micro air vehicles are being evaluated to satisfy these 
missions as well as operations in an urban environment. Shadow 200 
lacks the range, endurance, and payload capacity required for an 
extended range/multi-purpose air vehicle to support division and corps 
level operations. The missions and roles envisioned for the extended 
range/multi-purpose UAV (long range reconnaissance, surveillance, and 
target acquisition; communications relay; armed attack; aviation 
manned--unmanned teaming; cargo lift; MEDEVAC; signals intelligence; 
minefield detection; chemical, biological, and radiological detection 
and survey; etc.) require greater dwell times, greater range, and 
larger payload capacity. Additionally, greater range requirements 
mandate a non-line of sight solution.
                              digitization
    Question. General Shinseki, what is the status of the digitization' 
of the III Corps at Fort Hood?
    Answer. The Army is currently digitizing the divisions of III Corps 
at Fort Hood. Two-thirds of the 4th Infantry Division have been 
completed with the remaining elements at Fort Carson scheduled for 
fiscal year 2005. First Cavalry Division modernization is underway with 
completion scheduled in fiscal year 2003. The remaining corps units, at 
Fort Hood and elsewhere, are being digitized and will continue as the 
combat elements are digitized.
                      wheeled vehicle maintenance
    Question. General Shinseki, the Army is busy developing the Army of 
the future--one that will feature predominantly wheeled vehicles. 
However, your service has yet to identify a wheeled vehicle depot to 
maintain this new fleet.
    Will you consider the merits of naming Red River Army Depot a 
``Center for Industrial and Technical Excellence'' for wheeled vehicle 
maintenance?
    Answer. Yes, the Army will consider this. However, final 
determination of repair location for each type of equipment will occur 
only after conducting the appropriate analysis to include best 
operational and cost value.
                                hydra-70
    Question. General, the budget submission cuts funding for the 
Hydra-70 rockets from $136.7 million in fiscal year 2002 to $22.4 
million in fiscal year 2003. This represents an 84 percent cut in this 
program and consequently reduces the amount of rockets for an aircrew 
to fire in training and qualification by an equal amount, down to just 
26 rockets per crew per year. The fact that this system is used by all 
services and is the primary aerial-fired area suppression system for 
the services makes this cut even more significant.
    What is the Army's plan to bridge the gap between this system and 
the precision-guided 2.75-inch rocket that will not be fielded until 
fiscal year 2007?
    Answer. The Army has been asked to make tough choices to move the 
military toward Transformation. This is a clear example of where we 
have decided to move forward and accept risk by reducing the amount of 
Hydra-70 rockets procured and move toward rocket technology that will 
give the warfighter a low-cost, precision engagement capability that he 
does not possess today. As part of a continuing and ongoing review 
process, the Army is reassessing rocket strategies and will carefully 
manage the remaining Hydra-70 training round inventory. This strategy 
is tied closely to the fielding of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon 
System.
    Question. How does the Army plan to maintain an acceptable level of 
competence by its aircrews in the employment of these rockets?
    Answer. To ensure that our aviators are prepared for combat, the 
Army anticipates no change to current training strategies for the next 
two years.
                       fort bliss atsa relocation
    Question. General it has come to my attention that some in the Army 
are considering moving the ATEC Threat Support Activity (ATSA) from 
Fort Bliss to either White Sands Missile Range or Dugway Proving 
Grounds.
    What is the impetus to this initiative?
    Answer. The impetus of studying the possible move of the Army Test 
and Evaluation Command's (ATEC) Threat Support Activity (ATSA) was to 
determine if efficiencies and operational synergy could be gained. ATEC 
has an ongoing study to review possible realignment of assets, which 
includes a possible relocation of all or part of the ATSA; however, 
feasibility and appropriateness of such an action has yet to been 
determined.
    Question. At what point did you plan to notify the Congress that 
such a move was being considered?
    Answer. If the ATEC study concludes that relocating ATSA is both 
feasible and appropriate to gain efficiencies and operational synergy, 
ATEC will initiate a stationing study as required by Army regulation. 
Included in this process are procedures for notifying Congress of any 
relocation efforts.

                          subcommittee recess

    Senator Inouye. We will stand in recess until March 13. At 
that time we will receive testimony from the Air Force. Thank 
you very much.
    [Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., Wednesday, March 6, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]


       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2002

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:18 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Inouye, Feinstein, Stevens, Cochran, 
Domenici, and Shelby.

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                         Missile Defense Agency

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD T. KADISH, 
            DIRECTOR

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

    Senator Inouye. Good morning. Today, we are pleased to 
welcome Lieutenant General Ronald T. Kadish, Director of the 
Missile Defense Agency. The purpose of today's hearing is to 
review the Department of Defense's (DOD's) fiscal year 2003 
funding recommendations for ballistic missile defense programs.
    Missile defense is, of course, a program of great interest 
to many, and one not without controversy. Indeed, the missile 
defense program is one of the most critical national security 
issues of today and for the foreseeable future.
    There is no question that the ballistic missile threat 
against our nation and our troops in the field will continue to 
grow. It has been reported that the United States could face an 
intercontinental ballistic missile threat from North Korea, 
Iran, and possibly Iraq by 2015. As the anti-ballistic missiles 
(ABM) continue to proliferate, some estimate that these 
countries could have over 1,000 Scud-type missiles within a 
decade.
    The question our country faces is how best to meet this 
threat. The administration's plan calls for a layered defense 
to intercept ballistic missiles of all ranges, in all phases of 
flight. It also calls for this missile shield to cover the 
territories and deployed forces of the United States, our 
allies, and our friends.
    This is an expensive program. The DOD fiscal year 2003 
funding plan proposes that more than $46 billion be allocated 
to missile defense over the period of 2002 to 2007. In fact, 
the Congressional Budget Office and others have estimated that 
funding for missile defense could approach $200 billion when 
all is said and done.
    This is also a complex program. Recently, the program has 
witnessed a string of successful tests, and for that, I commend 
you, General Kadish. There are still many technological and 
management hurdles to overcome, but let me assure you, General 
Kadish, this committee views the missile defense program as 
critically important to our national security, and we will do 
our best to support your efforts. Yet, given the risks and 
costs of this program, not to mention the tradeoffs that must 
be made between funding missile defense and other worthwhile 
military programs, we must be ever vigilant in our oversight.
    So today's hearing provides the committee an important 
opportunity to understand the priorities and challenges of our 
missile defense program. So General, we welcome you, and we 
welcome your testimony.
    But before we begin, let me turn to my co-chairman, Senator 
Stevens, for any opening remarks.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
join you in welcoming General Kadish before our committee. He 
has been a trusted partner in this endeavor of ours to secure a 
reliable missile defense system. I want the General to know, 
those of us from our generation, who have lived through too 
many wars, are hopeful that before we depart this Earth, we 
will have a reliable defense system for the future of the 
United States. Now, since we had last convened--I am not 
predicting our leaving, by the way, but it is not that far 
away.
    Since we last convened to review these programs, several 
elements of the missile defense architecture have significantly 
changed, and we welcome your comments and views, General 
Kadish, on these program realignments. More importantly, the 
ground-based mid-course segment of the program, previously 
known as the National Missile Defense Program, has, as its 
chairman said, enjoyed notable success, and we really 
congratulate you and your people.
    You and your predecessor, General Lyles, made it clear that 
testing success must be a norm, rather than a random event, and 
these successes enjoyed in the recent testings validate the 
determination which you, and the Department, and Congress have 
worked to prove on the hit-to-kill concept.
    As a result of those successful tests, the Department 
awarded contracts yesterday to commence the installation of the 
advanced testbed facility at Fort Greeley, in my home State. I 
look forward to hearing from you today about those plans, and 
the timetable to establish the initial testbed capability.
    While the weapons side of the program involving Patriot, 
Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and the ground-
based interceptors have proceeded well, we face a more daunting 
challenge on the sensor side of the missile defense equation. 
We need your help today to try and understand the focus of the 
Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High and SBIRS Low 
programs, I am sure my friend from Mississippi is going to go 
into that, and the path of recovery on both, if that is to be 
our course.
    General Kadish, you have been a frequent visitor to my 
State. You have earned the trust and respect of Alaskans, who 
will be partners in the construction, deployment, and operation 
of the missile defense facilities in Alaska. We will welcome 
you back any time. As a matter of fact, I will get you a 
permanent resident fishing license, if you would like. I am not 
sure our boss would like it, but we want you back whenever you 
can come back.
    I appreciate your openness and candor on all these matters. 
You have really been a direct and open senior officer, and we 
have massive respect for your capabilities.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
    Senator Cochran.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

    Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Welcome to the hearing, General Kadish. We appreciate the 
good work you have been doing in this office. You had taken 
over, I guess, almost 3 years ago, under a difficult situation, 
with constraints from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and 
interpretations of that treaty, negotiations for demarcation 
agreements, and the like, that constrained what you could do in 
terms of testing and development programs.
    We also had difficulties getting funding for many of the 
things that go into the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Office 
that we were recommending, but you have brought us through this 
difficult phase of development to a point where we are now 
seeing almost routinely successful tests of various missile 
defense technologies and systems. For that, I think we need to 
recognize the great success that has been achieved, and to 
congratulate you and all those others, both within and outside 
of Government, who are responsible for the great success.
    So I think we can look forward to a future where, as 
Senator Stevens suggests is important for us to achieve, we 
will be safe and secure from ballistic missile attack, and our 
troops and friends in the field and around the world will have 
a means of protecting themselves from theater-missiles or other 
missile attacks.
    So we want you to know that we appreciate your efforts. And 
I for one, I am going to commit to you that we will continue to 
work in cooperation with the administration to achieve the 
goals that have been set by the President, and that is to get a 
defensive system into the field as soon as possible. I think 
that is very important, not only theater systems, but a long-
term ballistic missile defense system as well. So you have our 
commitment to do our best to help ensure that we have the funds 
to achieve that goal.
    Thank you.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Shelby.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. 
First, I ask that my statement be made a part of the record in 
its entirety.
    I just want to tell you, General Kadish, I think you have 
done a heck of a job under difficult circumstances, because the 
technology is evolving. You have shown that, and that you have 
had notable success, and I believe you will have more in the 
future. I think your tests, you will make them tougher, and 
tougher, and tougher, and I am here just to support you, and 
commend you for what you do.
    Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby

    Welcome General Kadish. I look forward to your remarks here 
today. In your testimony you clearly relay the fact that 
serious technology issues exist. I believe greater emphasis on 
technology development and maturation is absolutely necessary. 
Hurdles exist that must be overcome. I am one member of this 
committee, but I want to help you achieve your goals.
    Only through a focused and investment-driven strategy to 
improving the technology currently available will MDA be able 
to pursue testing that is realistic and field systems that will 
work as designed day in and day out.
    Every effort must be made to tighten the error ellipse our 
current systems produce. ``Goal-tending'' should not be an 
option. The C-band beacon must go. Focal plane array technology 
must improve. I haven't talked to any experts who believe that 
technology and hardware limitations can be overcome by software 
improvements.
    The threat is real, evolving and growing as you pointed out 
in your testimony General, and we must make the investments 
necessary to protect our fighting forces, our allies abroad and 
our own homeland from those who will attack our citizens and 
vital interests in the future. We have indeed come a long way, 
and I believe we must go all the way on missile defense.
    I support your overall fiscal year 2003 request because I 
believe it provides the necessary funding to improve technology 
and to continue robust testing regimes that will give MDA and 
our nation the best chance for success in the future. I do have 
some specific questions for you later.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman.

    Senator Inouye. Now, if I may call upon Lieutenant General 
Ronald T. Kadish.
    General Kadish. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
the comments from everyone on a very difficult road ahead. I do 
have some prepared remarks that I would ask to be entered into 
the record, and I would just like to summarize what I have in 
those remarks.
    Senator Inouye. Without objection, your full statement is 
made part of the record.
    General Kadish. As you have already pointed out, we have 
made really significant progress in the program, since I last 
testified to this committee especially, and we spent the past 
year testing very key technologies, and their integration into 
a larger system, and restructuring our program to better 
address the challenges we face, especially in a post-ABM Treaty 
environment.
    Our budget and the basic objective of our program is to 
develop missile defense that is effective in protecting our 
country, our deployed forces, our allies, and friends from all 
ranges of ballistic missiles. We have asked for a total of $6.7 
billion for fiscal year 2003. That is slightly less than what 
we asked for last year.
    The budget we have submitted, however, for fiscal year 2003 
is very substantial, but it continues in the same range as last 
year to provide for a stability to the program. In so doing, it 
supports our program priorities for development, and our 
extensive test schedule.
    Now, let me talk about our testing progress, and give you a 
report card on our tests. As I said, we have made good 
progress, not only in our flight testing, but in our ground 
testing as well. Over the past 12 months, in hit-to-kill 
intercept tests against ballistic missile targets, we have a 
three-for-three record with our ground-based mid-course defense 
system against long-range missiles. The full record there now 
stands at four out of six. We are one-for-one with our Sea-
based Midcourse system, a major step forward for us.
    For the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) over the past 
year, we are only one for two. We did miss once; yet, overall 
for PAC-3, the record is six-for-seven against ballistic 
missile targets. So we have made good progress.
    That is not to say, however, that we have not had our 
failures--we have had some--or that we still do not have a long 
way to go. But as I pointed out, we are now at a testing 
crossroads in our program, with much success already building, 
and when success comes in increasingly more complex testing, as 
in PAC-3, for instance, we know we are on the right track.
    I predict that the pace and the complexity of our testing 
is also picking up. We have 13 more flight tests scheduled for 
the remainder of this fiscal year, of all types, together with 
10 ground tests that are significant, and 14 system-wide tests 
and exercises.
    Now, let me explain some of the changes we have made to our 
program. I want to address some key aspects very briefly, and 
then I will be happy to discuss these in more detail in 
response to your questions.
    First, why did we make the changes that we made? I think 
there are two main reasons. First, we are still facing an 
unprecedented technological challenge in bringing missile 
defense into effective use. Second, in order to do that, we 
need to speed up our acquisition processes and decision making, 
and ensure their relevancy in meeting this technological 
challenge.
    The decision cycle time for the traditional major 
acquisitions program is too long for our purposes. Both the 
threat and the technology can change during the often lengthy 
time between setting a requirement and fielding a system.
    The process changes we are making will let us adjust 
quickly to changes in both the threat and the technology, and 
hopefully shorten the time needed to field this capability; 
yet, the changes we are making affect only the development on 
portions of our program, not those dealing with service 
procurement and production, which we will continue to follow 
the more normal, traditional acquisition procedures when we 
offer them for production.
    I would like to emphasize that some have said we are doing 
away with requirements with these changes. We are not doing 
away with requirements, as we need them. We are doing away with 
the way we derive and define them, and use them in the process. 
Since we cannot know with confidence what the specific threat 
will be over time, we will try to evaluate and anticipate the 
capabilities of an adversary, and those that they might have in 
a given time frame, by setting the range of our requirements 
more broadly than in the past, and this can reduce the element 
of the surprise against our systems.
    Additionally, because the pace of technological change is 
so rapid, we have users and developers sitting down together 
under our leadership for a whole period of the development time 
to draw up what the requirements should be, and strike the 
right balance between what is needed and what is possible. I 
think that is important enough to repeat. We need to strike the 
right balance between what is needed and what is possible.
    The traditional system takes longer, because these players 
work sequentially, where requirements follow the development, 
and not simultaneously and in close concert that we are 
proposing with our processes. This approach allows for the 
early development of an effective capability, I believe, and 
one that can be enhanced over time, and nominally in a 2-year 
time period, or what we call blocks.
    This is still a disciplined, documented process that we 
intend to follow for developing ground-breaking systems, and 
one that we have used, for instance, in very successful 
programs in our country's history in, for example, the Polaris 
C-launch Ballistic Missile, and the SR-71 Reconnaissance 
Aircraft.
    Now, our management approach has also been adjusted to 
support this reduction in cycle time. As the Director, I have 
been given more authority, and we have flattened our 
organization of the Missile Defense Agency to make it more 
responsive. I continue to report, however, directly to the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, and I am subject to consistent, frequent, and 
focused oversight.
    The Department Senior Executive Council, or what we call 
the SEC, maintains executive oversight of the program. I have 
already met with them almost once a month, on average, since 
last August. It is the council's responsibility to decide major 
issues in the program, as well as whether to move elements into 
production, and make recommendations to the Secretary on 
fielding of elements of the system once they are ready.
    The SEC's decision and mine are supported by a Missile 
Defense Support Group that was created, that also reports to 
the Under Secretary. This support group and its subordinate 
working groups combine the interests and efforts of 13 
different offices and agencies within the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD). By providing their assessment and 
advice simultaneously, we hope we can greatly reduce decision 
cycle times on this program.
    Now, our relationships with industry are very complex in 
this endeavor, but not unprecedented. The Government will 
rightly retain the responsibility for delivering this system, 
but a much closer relationship is necessary between Government 
and industry, because the cutting-edge expertise of what is 
possible will be done through the industry expertise and 
arrangements. Hence, we are bringing together what we are 
calling a National Team across all our contractors, and 
focusing whatever best and brightest talent we could find on 
this very difficult problem, from Government, academia, 
industry, and other places as well.
    Mr. Chairman, over the past years I have said we have made 
some very significant strides in our development program, as 
some of our major test events have shown; yet, we also have 
some very significant challenges ahead of us, both in defining 
and resolving the right technical issues, and in managing this 
unprecedented program, so we can ensure our missile defenses 
will become as effective as soon as possible, and will remain 
so over time.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Our budget request is focused toward this goal. It provides 
the resources for continued program progress, and some 
stability, and with your continued and very valuable support, 
and that of the American people, I have every confidence we 
will be successful.
    Thank you very much.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, General Kadish.
    [The statement follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Ronald T. Kadish
    Good morning. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to 
present the Department of Defense's fiscal year 2003 Missile Defense 
Program and budget.
    The Department of Defense is developing effective missile defenses 
for the territories and deployed forces of the United States, allies, 
and friends. Ballistic missiles already pose a threat to the United 
States and to U.S. interests, forces, allies and friends. The missiles 
possessed by potential adversaries are growing in range, reliability, 
and accuracy. The proliferation of ballistic missile technologies, 
materials, and expertise can also occur in unexpected ways, enabling 
potential adversaries to accelerate missile development or quickly 
acquire new capabilities. Missiles carrying nuclear, biological, or 
chemical weapons could inflict damage that far surpasses what we 
experienced last September 11. The events of that day underscored the 
vulnerability of our homeland, even to assault from distant regions.
    Defensive capabilities to counter this threat cannot be deployed 
overnight. We also recognize that the threat is continually changing. 
So we are taking an approach to build missile defenses that will allow 
us to put capabilities ``in play'' as soon as practicable to provide 
the best defenses possible against the projected threat, based on 
technological progress and success in testing. After nearly a decade of 
steady developmental progress, we are deploying the first Patriot 
Advanced Capability 3, or PAC-3, missiles to give our forces protection 
against short-range threats. In the coming years we plan to introduce 
new capabilities to defeat medium- and even longer-range ballistic 
missiles.
    Over the past year, we have made considerable progress in 
demonstrating key missile defense technologies and integration 
concepts. This past January we took a significant step forward and 
broke new ground with the successful midcourse intercept of a medium-
range ballistic missile target using a sea-based interceptor. Following 
successful intercepts of long-range targets in July and December of 
last year, and in March of this year, we gained further confidence in 
our Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) design and capability. And 
with the Airborne Laser, or ABL, we are making steady progress in the 
development of directed energy technologies by achieving record power 
levels in the last two tests and successfully completing the final 
lasing test for Laser Module-1.
    Some of our tests showed we need more work to achieve our design 
objectives. The third test late last year of the boost vehicle under 
development for the GMD element failed to launch as planned. Because a 
faster ground-based interceptor will increase significantly our 
engagement envelope, we are focusing intently to resolve the associated 
development problems. Recently, PAC-3 began a series of operational 
tests. In mid-February, PAC-3 teamed up with PAC-2 in a multiple 
simultaneous engagement test to intercept three air-breathing targets, 
but intercepted just one. And although a second PAC-3 missile failed to 
fire in a test last month, we did destroy both the missile and air-
breather targets. Despite some setbacks, we continue to make remarkable 
strides, Mr. Chairman, and we grow increasingly confident in our 
ability to deliver effective missile defense capabilities over the next 
few years. Yet we should all recognize that there remains a long road 
ahead.
Approach to Missile Defense
    The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) will develop incrementally a 
Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System that layers defenses to 
intercept ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases of flight-
boost, midcourse, and terminal.\1\ These increments will be transferred 
to the Services for production and deployment as soon as practicable. 
We are working with the warfighters, the CINCs, and the Services 
throughout this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ On January 2, 2002, the Secretary of Defense established the 
Missile Defense Agency to manage the development of effective missile 
defenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the results of last year's rigorous missile defense 
review, the Department has moved away from an independently managed, 
element-centric approach and established a single program to develop an 
integrated BMD System. The BMD System will consist of elements 
configured into layered defenses to provide autonomous and mutual 
support, including multiple engagement opportunities, along a threat 
missile's flight path. The Missile Defense Program supports numerous 
risk reduction activities, including flight tests, ground simulations, 
and hardware-in-the-loop demonstrations.
    Engineering complexities and operational realities associated with 
missile defense require operational and system integration as well as 
an ability to operate elements autonomously. Therefore, a key tenet of 
the missile defense program is robust, realistic testing within the BMD 
System Test Bed. This Test Bed is an integrated set of components that 
are widely dispersed among operationally realistic locations primarily 
throughout the Pacific and continental United States. While its 
specific components have independent utility, the Test Bed is designed 
to support development of missile defense elements and demonstrate an 
integrated, layered missile defense system. We will use the Test Bed 
over the next few years to validate the midcourse, boost, and terminal 
elements, including supporting sensors, and the necessary BM/C\2\ and 
communications components. This Test Bed was most recently used to test 
the Standard Missile-3 interceptor for Sea-based Midcourse Defense 
(SMD) and in fiscal year 2002 it will host additional GMD and SMD 
intercept flight tests and a major System Integration Test.
    The BMD System Test Bed includes prototypes and surrogates of the 
System elements as well as supporting test infrastructure to provide 
trajectory, sensing, interception, and BM/C\2\ and communication 
scenarios that resemble conditions under which the System might be 
expected to operate. It will enable testing against faster, longer-
range target missiles than we are using today, and it will allow us to 
test using different geometric, operational, and element 
configurations.
    As they become available, we could use prototypes and test assets 
to provide early capability, if so directed. A decision to employ test 
assets would depend upon the success of testing, the appropriate 
positioning of Test Bed components, the availability of test 
interceptors and other assets, and the international security 
environment. Our test infrastructure, in other words, will have an 
inherent, though rudimentary, operational capability.
    Our program is now entering a new phase, moving from technology 
development to system engineering, and we face a very significant 
challenge of integrating many diverse elements into one system. We 
employ thousands of individuals throughout the United States. We also 
are collaborating extensively with all of the Military Departments and 
the Joint Staff as we investigate different basing modes and deal with 
associated operational and planning challenges. Our approach to 
managing resources is clearly an important element of our approach to 
missile defense. This committee's support for the President's ``Freedom 
to Manage'' initiative will reduce statutory requirements that can 
restrict management flexibility, allowing us to more efficiently and 
effectively execute the Missile Defense program.
Acquisition Strategy
    The BMD System is highly complex, so we are using an acquisition 
approach that capitalizes on advances in missile defense technology and 
continually adjusts to changes in external factors (e.g., threat, 
policy, and priorities) as appropriate. We are following an aggressive 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) acquisition 
strategy that allows us to respond to changes in the threat, manages 
changes in System technologies, and ensures progress in development and 
testing.
    The BMD System architecture will take shape based on periodic 
decisions and assessments within the MDA and the Department's Senior 
Executive Council. Annual assessments will include evaluations of 
element test performance, system architecture, technological and basing 
alternatives, and the threat. The initial goal is to provide limited 
protection against long-range threats for the United States and 
potentially our allies within the 2004-2008 timeframe, while delivering 
more advanced capabilities against shorter-range threats.
    The traditional requirements process has not worked well for 
missile defense. Missile defense is a cutting-edge development effort 
and an area where we have very little operational experience. The 
requirements definition process typically leverages operational 
experience to set system specifications many years before actual 
deployment, a process that can lead to a less than optimum deployed 
capability that does not take advantage of the most advanced 
technologies.
    Let me illustrate what I mean. The B-52 bomber that first flew in 
1952 is hardly the same aircraft that dropped bombs over Afghanistan in 
the war against terrorism. The original B-52 design, which gave us an 
early intercontinental bombardment capability, was enhanced over time 
through hardware and software improvements to meet evolving operational 
challenges. It may look the same, but today's B-52 is a very different 
aircraft.
    Similarly, we enhanced over many years the Patriot batteries we saw 
in the 1991 Gulf War. Although its capability to defend small areas was 
improved during Desert Shield, performance against Iraqi Scuds was not 
impressive. As a result, the Department initiated a follow-on 
enhancement program and replaced the original missile with a completely 
new interceptor.
    These examples illustrate that in today's dynamic security 
environment, a requirement written in a system's development phase can 
quickly become irrelevant or a one-way street that leads developers 
into a technological cul-de-sac. Five years ago, nobody could have 
written a requirement for today's Internet and gotten it exactly right.
    We, therefore, have modified our acquisition approach. In line with 
the Secretary's decision to cancel the current Operational Requirements 
Documents (ORDs) related to missile defense, we are using the ORDs as 
reference documents, but not as the final measures of development 
progress. Instead of developing a system in response to a clearly 
defined threat from a known adversary, we are looking at missile 
capabilities that any adversary could have in a given timeframe. We 
also continually assess missile defense technology options and 
availability. Using a capability-based approach to ensure that a 
militarily useful BMD System can be deployed as soon as practicable, we 
are setting initial capability standards and engaging the CINCs, 
Services, and industry. This acquisition approach supports the 
effective engineering and integration of the BMD System and ensures a 
transition of effective, threat-relevant system capabilities to the 
Services for production, deployment, and operations.
    While we are moving away from some of the rigidities associated 
with the traditional acquisition process, we are not abandoning 
discipline in development. Capability-based acquisition requires 
continual assessment of technical and operational alternatives at the 
element and BMD System levels. We will build what we can 
technologically, and improve it as rapidly as possible. Configuration 
management and risk management will continue to guide the engineering 
processes.
    In a capability-based approach that pursues parallel development 
paths, a risk management program is essential. To execute BMDS level 
risk management, we are identifying risk issues and an analytical basis 
for modifications and enhancements. This disciplined risk management 
process supports the annual review and assessment of the BMD System and 
accommodates significant user participation at the appropriate times 
during development.
    The missile defense acquisition strategy engineers and tests the 
system using a two-year capability ``Block'' approach, with the initial 
introduction of elements into the expanded Test Bed starting as early 
as fiscal year 2004. The initial BMD System capability (Block 2004) 
will evolve as technologies mature and are demonstrated satisfactorily 
in the BMD System Test Bed. This capability will be increased 
incrementally in future Blocks through the introduction of new sensor 
and weapon components, and by augmenting or upgrading existing 
capabilities.
    Each BMD System Block is comprised of selected element 
configurations integrated into the overall System BM/C\2\. There will 
be annual decision points at which time assessments will be made on the 
basis of: effectiveness and synergy within the system; technical risk; 
deployment schedule; cost; and threat. This assessment of progress will 
determine whether a given developmental activity will be accelerated, 
modified, or terminated. Implementing changes expeditiously and 
prudently maximize value from our investments and allow more rapid 
program adjustments based on threat projections and technological 
progress.
    Each subsequent Block will build on and be integrated into the 
capabilities provided by predecessor Blocks that make up the BMD 
System. This evolutionary strategy allows us to put the high 
performance technologies ``in play'' sooner than would otherwise be 
possible. Once they have been demonstrated, elements or their 
components will be available for emergency use, if directed, or for 
transfer to the Military Departments for production as part of a 
standard acquisition program.
Program Description
    Our approach to developing missile defenses builds on the 
technological, engineering, and integration progress we have made to 
date. We are currently pursuing parallel development efforts in order 
to reduce risk in the individual RDT&E efforts and aggressively 
demonstrating technologies for integration on land, sea, air, and 
space-based elements. When a capability is sufficiently validated, that 
element or component will be ready for a decision regarding transition 
to production.
    We are also exploring new concepts and experiments for the 
development of advanced sensor suites and kinetic and directed energy 
kill mechanisms for potential sea, ground, air, and space deployment. 
In line with our disciplined walk-before-you-run, learn-as-you-go 
approach to testing, we are incorporating more realistic scenarios and 
countermeasures into the missile defense development test program. The 
Test Bed will be expanded to accommodate this aggressive and robust 
testing approach.

                         FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET ALLOCATION BY WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
                                             [TY dollars in million]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year--
                            WBS                            -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              2002     2003     2004     2005     2006     2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0--BMDS.................................................      846    1,101    1,252    1,200    1,182    1,219
2.0--Terminal Defense Segment.............................    2,026    1,128      927    1,078    1,149    1,499
3.0--Midcourse Defense Segment............................    3,762    3,193    3,074    3,016    2,969    2,596
4.0--Boost Defense Segment................................      600      797    1,390    1,400    1,591    2,275
5.0--Sensor Segment.......................................      335      373      489    1,146      900    1,008
6.0--Technology...........................................      139      122      155      130      143      147
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      MDA Total...........................................    7,709    6,714    7,287    7,970    7,934    8,743
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Missile Defense Program allocates resources required for the 
BMD System, including the integration of individual elements into a 
single, synergistic system to defend the territories and deployed 
forces of the United States, allies, and friends. The BMD System 
segment comprises System Engineering and Integration (SE&I), BM/C\2\, 
Communications, Targets and Countermeasures, Test and Evaluation, 
Producibility and Manufacturing Technology, and Program Operations 
(which includes Management Headquarters and Pentagon Reservation). 
Funding in this segment provides resources to define, select, test, 
integrate, and demonstrate the elements in the Terminal Defense, 
Midcourse Defense, Boost Defense, and Sensor segments. The tasks 
included in this segment are those that will benefit the entire BMD 
System, not just a particular element or program. This segment also 
includes management efforts to ensure architectural consistency and 
integration of missile defense elements within the overarching missile 
defense mission.
    The President's Budget requests $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2003 
for RDT&E in the BMD Segment, an increase of $255 million over the 
fiscal year 2002 enacted funding level. RDT&E and military construction 
funding in this segment across the fiscal year 2003-07 FYDP is about 
$6.0 billion.




    As the central engineering component within MDA, the Systems 
Engineering and Integration activity provides the overall system 
engineering development and integration of the BMD System. SE&I 
activities will define and manage the layered BMD System 
collaboratively by providing detailed systems engineering and 
integration across the entire spectrum of System capabilities. 
Capability-based acquisition requires continual assessment of technical 
and operational alternatives at the component, element, and system 
levels. The systems engineering process involves setting BMD System 
Technical Objectives and Goals; addressing existing, emerging, and 
postulated adversary capabilities; assessing and determining System 
design and element contributions; synthesizing System Blocks; 
introducing new technologies and operational concepts; conducting 
System risk analyses; and considering impacts of potential foreign 
contributions to BMD System capabilities.
    The BM/C\2\ activity will develop and integrate the BM/C\2\ and 
communications functions for the BMD System. To provide maximum 
flexibility to the war fighter, this activity includes the development 
of specifications needed to ensure Terminal Defense, Midcourse Defense, 
Boost Defense, and Sensor segments are properly integrated and 
interoperable with external systems, to include those of allies. 
Communications funding consolidates and refines BMD system-wide 
communication links to allow components of the BMD System to exchange 
data and to permit command and control orders to be transmitted to 
weapons and sensors.
    The Targets and Countermeasures program provides capability-based 
ballistic missile targets, countermeasures, and other payloads to 
support system-testing as well as element testing across the segments. 
Standard interfaces are being defined between payloads and boosters, so 
that we can introduce different targets into BMD System flight test 
scenarios with greater efficiency. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, we 
are establishing an inventory of target modules (boosters, reentry-
vehicles, countermeasures, and instrumentation) to shorten the build-
cycle and support more frequent flight tests.
    The Test and Evaluation program includes the test and evaluation 
infrastructure, tools for program-wide use, and execution of system-
level testing. Individual BMD System elements will conduct risk 
reduction, developmental, and operational testing. System level tests 
go beyond these, testing synergy, interoperability, BM/C\2\ and 
communication links across the elements. Also resourced are those tests 
conducted for the purpose of making critical measurements required 
across the missile defense regime, for example, measurements of 
adversary missile characteristics such as plume signatures, lethality 
measurements, and characterization of potential countermeasures. Such 
data collection becomes an important input to the design and 
development of effective defenses.
    Supporting robust, realistic testing requires a significant 
investment in the development and maintenance of the requisite test 
infrastructure, analytical tools, and computational capabilities. 
Because this supports both the System and all of its elements, it is 
resourced centrally at the System level. The BMD System test 
infrastructure includes a number of critical, specialized ground test 
facilities, test range facilities, launch capabilities, and 
instrumentation, such as several airborne sensor platforms and other 
mobile capabilities unique to missile defense testing. Core models and 
simulations, both for engineering and integration purposes, are also 
developed, validated, and maintained. These range from detailed 
phenomenology and lethality codes used by all the System elements to 
large-scale wargaming simulations required for BM/C\2\ and operational 
concept of operations development. A number of computational 
facilities, data libraries, and simulation facilities are also 
resourced at the System level.
Terminal Defense Segment (TDS)
    The Terminal Defense Segment involves development and upgrades of 
missile defense capabilities that engage short- to medium-range 
ballistic missiles in the terminal phase of their trajectory. The 
missile or warhead enters the terminal phase when it reenters the 
atmosphere. This is a short phase, lasting less than a minute. Elements 
in this defense segment include Theater High Altitude Area Defense 
(THAAD), PATRIOT Advanced Capability Level 3 (PAC-3), Medium Extended 
Air Defense System (MEADS), and a sea-based terminal concept definition 
element (successor to the Navy Area activities). Additionally, other 
elements funded by the MDA are the Israeli Arrow Deployability Program, 
which includes the Israeli Test Bed (ITB), Arrow System Improvement 
Program, and studies via the Israeli Systems Architecture and 
Integration effort.
    The MDA budget allocation for TDS activities in fiscal year 2003 is 
$1.1 billion, which includes funds for RDT&E and military construction. 
The MDA budget includes about $5.8 billion in fiscal year 2003-2007 for 
the terminal defense segment. These figures reflect a decision by the 
Department to transfer to the Army all funding for PAC-3 and MEADS from 
fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2007.
    The Congress returned PAC-3 and MEADS to MDA for fiscal year 2002 
pending the fulfillment of congressionally mandated requirements. Upon 
satisfaction of all congressional directives, we will transfer the PAC-
3 to the Army.



            TDS Elements
    THAAD is designed to defend against short- to medium-range 
ballistic missiles at endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes, which can 
make effective countermeasures against THAAD difficult to employ. It 
also allows multiple intercept opportunities, and can significantly 
mitigate the effects of weapons of mass destruction. THAAD will protect 
forward-deployed U.S. and allied armed forces, broadly dispersed 
assets, and population centers against missile attacks.
    In fiscal year 2003, we will complete missile and launcher designs 
and initiate manufacturing of missile ground test units, continue 
fabrication of the first and second radars, and continue to fabricate 
and test the BM/C\2\ hardware and software. We will support robust 
ground-testing and flight-hardware testing in preparation for missile 
flights in fiscal year 2004 at the White Sands Missile Range. The 
element development phase will refine and mature the THAAD design to 
ensure component and element performance, producibility, and 
supportability. There are five major THAAD components: missiles, 
launchers, radars, BM/C\2\, and THAAD-specific support equipment.
    PAC-3 provides terminal missile defense capability to protect U.S. 
forward-deployed forces, allies, and friends. PAC-3 can counter enemy 
short-range ballistic missiles, anti-radiation missiles, and aircraft 
employing advanced countermeasures and a low radar cross-section. PAC-3 
successfully completed development testing last year, during which 
there were three intercepts of ballistic missiles, two cruise missile 
intercepts, and four multiple simultaneous engagements of ballistic and 
cruise missiles. The start of PAC-3 operational testing in February 
2002 shows that we still have work to do. In fiscal year 2003, we will 
execute activity to develop, integrate, and test evolutionary block 
upgrades. Plans include transitioning PAC-3 to full rate production to 
build up PAC-3 missile inventory and field additional PAC-3 
capabilities.
    The Department decided in December 2001 to cancel the Navy Area 
program after a Nunn-McCurdy breach. Nonetheless, the need for timely 
development and deployment of a sea-based terminal ballistic missile 
defense capability remains. We have initiated the sea-based terminal 
study directed by the Department, which we expect to conclude this 
spring.
    MEADS is a cooperative effort between the United States, Germany, 
and Italy. MEADS will provide robust, 360-degree protection for 
maneuver forces and other critical forward-deployed assets against 
short- and medium-range missiles and air-breathing threats, such as 
cruise missiles and aircraft. In fiscal year 2001, the trilateral MEADS 
activity embarked on a three-year Risk Reduction Effort. In fiscal year 
2003, MEADS will continue design and development activities for key 
system components, which includes efforts to integrate the PAC-3 
missile with MEADS.
    The Arrow Weapon System (AWS), developed jointly by the United 
States and Israel, provides Israel a capability to defend against 
short- to medium-range ballistic missiles. The Arrow Deployability 
Program allows for Israel's acquisition of a third Arrow battery and 
Arrow's interoperability with U.S. systems. The Arrow System 
Improvement Program will include both technical cooperation to improve 
the performance of the AWS and a cooperative test and evaluation 
program to validate the improved AWS performance. We will support 
additional flight-testing and supply of components for additional 
missiles to be built in Israel. Continued U.S. cooperation with Israel 
will provide insight to Israeli technologies, which may be used to 
enhance U.S. ballistic missile defenses.
Midcourse Defense Segment (MDS)
    Midcourse Defense Segment elements engage threat ballistic missiles 
in the exo-atmosphere after booster burnout and before the warhead re-
enters the earth's atmosphere. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense and 
Sea-Based Midcourse Defense elements of the MDS are the successors to 
the National Missile Defense and Navy Theater Wide programs, 
respectively. The Sea-based Midcourse activity includes a cooperative 
missile technology development effort with Japan. Our budget for this 
segment in fiscal year 2003 (RDT&E and military construction) is almost 
$3.2 billion, or $570 million less than the funding enacted for fiscal 
year 2002. MDS funding is about $14.8 billion across the FYDP.



            MDS Elements
    The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) will engage threat 
missiles primarily during the descent phase of midcourse flight. Our 
GMD development activity has three main objectives: (1) demonstrate 
Hit-to-Kill; (2) develop and demonstrate an integrated system capable 
of countering known and expected long-range threats; and (3) develop 
infrastructure and assets for the initial GMD components of the BMD 
System Test Bed to conduct realistic tests using operationally 
representative hardware and software and produce reliable data for GMD 
and BMD System development.
    During fiscal year 2002, the GMD element will build upon recent 
successful intercept tests by further demonstrating hit-to-kill and 
discrimination capabilities using increasingly complex and realistic 
test-scenarios. Development of the 2004 BMD System Test Bed continues 
with an upgraded COBRA DANE radar in Alaska as a temporary surrogate 
for Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWRs); an accelerated version of 
the In-Flight Interceptor Communications System (IFICS) and Battle 
Management, Command, Control and Communications (BMC\3\) capability; 
five ``common'' silos with sparing; Command Launch Equipment (CLE); and 
software upgrades.
    In fiscal year 2003 five Ground-Based Interceptors using a 
precursor of the objective booster and an operationally representative 
kill vehicle will be developed for installation and testing in fiscal 
year 2004. MDA will continue to develop the objective booster and 
continue with the complementary EKV activity. This objective may allow 
for a common EKV for Ground and Sea-based Midcourse Defenses. BM/C\2\ 
and communications incremental prototypes will be integrated and 
demonstrated at multiple locations and assessed with user 
participation. The Prototype Manufacturing Rate Facility will continue 
in fiscal year 2003 to support a wide range of interceptor needs for 
the increased rate of flight tests. Research and development efforts 
for Block 2004 and subsequent Blocks will support the development of 
the initial GMD parts of the Block 2004 BMD System Test Bed. This 
facility will also support continued development and testing of more-
capable interceptors, sensors, and targets.
    Sea-based Midcourse Defense will develop a ship-based capability to 
intercept threat missiles early in the ascent phase of midcourse 
flight. SMD continues to build upon the existing Aegis Weapons System 
and Aegis Light-weight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) Intercept 
(ALI) activities while pursuing alternative kinetic warhead 
technologies.
    In January 2002, we conducted the first of many flight tests for 
the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) in order to demonstrate kill vehicle 
guidance, navigation, and control against a live ballistic missile 
target. The SM-3 launched from the U.S.S. LAKE ERIE, which was 
positioned in the BMD System Test Bed more than 500 kilometers away 
from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, and successfully collided with 
its target missile in space using infrared sensors. This was the first 
intercept for the hit-to-kill SMD element.
    Funding in fiscal year 2003 continues for concept definition, risk 
reduction and testing to further the development of a capability to 
defeat medium- to intermediate-range threats. The SMD project has three 
primary objectives in fiscal year 2003: (1) continue testing and 
complete ALI Flight Demonstration Project; (2) design and develop a 
contingency ship-based ascent and midcourse ballistic missile intercept 
capability based on ALI and associated technologies; and (3) continue 
an effort initiated in fiscal year 2002 to provide a ship-based missile 
defense system designed to provide an ascent midcourse phase ``hit-to-
kill'' technology in the fiscal year 2008-2010 timeframe.
    The United States and Japan, under a 1999 Memorandum of 
Understanding, are conducting a cooperative systems engineering project 
to design advanced missile components for possible integration into the 
SMD element. This project leverages the established and demonstrated 
industrial and engineering strengths of Japan and allows a significant 
degree of cost sharing.
Boost Defense Segment (BDS)
    The Boost Defense Segment addresses both Directed Energy and 
Kinetic Energy (KE) boost phase intercept (BPI) missile defense 
capabilities to create a defense layer near the hostile missile's 
launch point. To engage ballistic missiles in this phase, quick 
reaction times, high confidence decision-making, and multiple 
engagement capabilities are desired. The development of high-power 
lasers and faster interceptor capabilities are required to engineer 
kinetic and directed energy capabilities to provide options for 
multiple shot opportunities and basing modes in different geographic 
environments. MDA RDT&E funding in the Boost Defense Segment is $797 
million in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $197 million over fiscal 
year 2002 enacted funding, and is approximately $7.5 billion from 
fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2007.




    The BDS employs multiple development paths. Information derived 
from this approach will help evaluate the most promising BPI projects 
to provide a basis for an architecture decision between. The BDS will 
demonstrate the Airborne Laser (ABL) for the Block 2004 Test Bed. It 
will define and evolve space-based and sea-based kinetic energy BPI 
concepts. Also, we will evaluate space-based laser technologies. At the 
appropriate time, based on mature system concepts and technologies, we 
will initiate a focused demonstration of this concept in the Test Bed.
            BDS Elements
    ABL will acquire, track, and kill ballistic missiles in their boost 
phase of flight. Management and funding responsibility for ABL has 
officially transferred from the Air Force to the Missile Defense 
Agency. ABL integrates three major subsystems (Laser; Beam Control; and 
Battle Management, Command, Control, Communications, Computers and 
Intelligence (BM/C\4\I)) into a modified commercial Boeing 747-400F 
aircraft. ABL-specific ground support equipment also will be developed.
    Building on successful sub-system testing and the modification of 
aircraft structures, in fiscal year 2003 we will commence major 
subsystem integration and testing activities. The ABL Block 2004 phase 
culminates in a lethality demonstration (missile shoot-down) against 
boosting ballistic missile threat-representative targets and delivers 
one aircraft for integration and testing. If directed, this aircraft 
could also provide an emergency defensive capability. We plan to 
develop a second test aircraft, which will further develop this new 
technology.
    The Kinetic Energy Boost defense activity reduces the technical and 
programmatic risks of fielding a boost phase intercept capability. The 
KE Boost strategy is to define and assess militarily useful boost phase 
concepts, invest in focused risk reduction activities, and execute 
critical experiments. We will tap the brightest minds in the public and 
private sectors to define the most effective approach to killing 
ballistic missiles as they boost. We identified several lucrative 
technology candidates for immediate investment, including fast burn and 
flexible axial propulsion technologies, agile kill vehicles, early 
detection and track sensors, quick-reaction BM/C\2\, and affordable 
weapons platforms. We will assess these component technologies through 
rigorous ground and flight tests.
    We will evaluate prototype component and element configurations 
under realistic operational conditions. We will experiment using 
emerging component technologies and test infrastructure to resolve 
tough technical challenges, such as predicting the point of intercept 
and finding the missile tank in the presence of hot exhaust. When 
possible, we will exploit targets of opportunity by tracking space 
launch vehicles and test missions launched out of Vandenberg Air Force 
Base. The test data we collect from our risk reduction work and 
critical experiments will help guide decisions concerning focused 
demonstrations in fiscal year 2005.
    We are evaluating options for continuing Space-Based Laser (SBL) 
activity. The SBL project involves technology development and risk 
reduction activities in the key areas of laser output, beam control, 
and beam director design to demonstrate feasibility of boost phase 
intercept by a high-energy laser in space. These efforts leverage work 
started under previous SBL-funded technology development programs.
Sensor Segment
    Sensors developed in this segment will have multi-mission 
capabilities intended to enhance detection of and provide critical 
tracking information about ballistic missiles in all phases of flight. 
The fiscal year 2003 budget request for RDT&E in this segment is $373 
million, which represents an increase of $38 million over fiscal year 
2002 funding. The MDA budget provides $3.9 billion for the sensor 
segment during fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2007.




    The Space Based Infrared System-Low (SBIRS Low) element will 
incorporate new technologies to enhance detection; improve reporting on 
ballistic missile launches regardless of range or launch point; and 
provide critical mid-course tracking and discrimination data for the 
BMDS. When SBIRS Low is integrated with other space-based infrared, 
interceptor, and surface-based radar sensors, the BMD System will have 
a capability to counter a broad array of midcourse countermeasures. 
Moreover, SBIRS Low will not carry many of the risks associated with 
forward deployed ground-based sensors, which can be vulnerable to 
attack and for which foreign basing rights must be negotiated.
    Per direction in the fiscal year 2002 National Defense 
Appropriations Conference Report, plans for Satellite Sensor 
Technology, including SBIRS Low, will be provided to congressional 
defense committees by May 15, 2002. The restructured SBIRS Low activity 
will support numerous risk reduction activities, including technology 
maturation, ground simulations, and hardware-in-the-loop 
demonstrations. Based on cost, schedule, capability, and threat 
assessments, decisions will be made regarding production of a 
demonstrated SBIRS Low capability.
    The international component of the Sensor Segment is the Russian-
American Observation Satellite (RAMOS) project. We are cooperating with 
the Russian Federation in the area of early warning missile defense 
technologies. RAMOS is an innovative U.S.-Russian space-based remote 
sensor research and development initiative that engages Russian early 
warning satellite developers in the joint definition and execution of 
aircraft and space experiments.
    The Russians continue to review the agreement to execute the RAMOS 
project presented last July by the United States. Assuming agreement is 
reached this summer, in fiscal year 2003 we will complete detailed 
designs of the satellites and sensor payloads, begin fabrication and 
assembly of U.S. sensors and ground support equipment, and continue 
sensor software and modeling and simulation development. Launches of 
the first and second RAMOS satellites are projected to occur in fiscal 
year 2006.
Technology
    The Technology effort will develop components, subsystems and new 
concepts based on high-risk, high-payoff approaches. The primary focus 
of this effort is the development of sensors and weapons for future 
improved missile defense platforms. Investments maintain a balance 
between providing block upgrades to current acquisition programs and 
developing the enabling technologies for radically new concepts.
    Our budget for the Technology segment in fiscal year 2003 is $122 
million (RDT&E), a reduction of $18 million from fiscal year 2002 
enacted level. Funding from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2007 is 
projected to be about $697 million.




    To enable the BMD System to pace the threat, the Advanced 
Technology Development (ATD) effort is focused in four primary areas: 
(1) Terminal Missile Defense, (2) Midcourse Counter-Countermeasures, 
(3) Boost Phase Intercept, and (4) Global Defense. In addition to these 
tasks, investments are made in a strong technology base to move beyond 
the state-of-the-art in radars, infrared sensors, lasers, optics, 
propulsion, wide band gap materials, photonic devices, and other 
innovative concepts. The ATD office also works with the Systems 
Engineer and other segments to ensure seamless transition of proven 
advanced technology products into the BMD System.
Summary
    The BMD System will counter the full spectrum of ballistic missile 
threats, capitalize on existing technologies and capabilities, and 
foster innovation. It will incrementally incorporate capabilities 
needed to detect, track, intercept, and destroy ballistic missiles in 
all phases of flight using kinetic and directed energy kill mechanisms 
and various deployment approaches. We have implemented a disciplined 
and flexible acquisition strategy to provide a timely, capable system. 
This approach protects against uncertainty by ensuring that the United 
States will have the ability to defend itself, its deployed forces, 
allies, and friends from a ballistic missile attack should the need 
arise.
    I believe the approach I have outlined here toward developing and 
deploying missile defenses can meet the growing threat and provide for 
the earliest possible fielding of effective defensive capabilities.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions.

                        THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE

    Senator Inouye. General, several years ago, the focus of 
our missile defense program was protecting our forces in 
theater. Since then, we have refocused our attention on 
national missile defense, and justifiably so, given the threat 
to our Nation, but I am concerned that with the exception of 
the Patriot program, there are no funds for procuring any other 
theater missile defense system in DOD's Future Years Defense 
Plan. Are you concerned about this situation? If so, what can 
we do to address it?
    General Kadish. Mr. Chairman, we have a situation where we 
are on the verge of developing those very systems that you 
discussed against shorter-range missiles for our deployed 
forces. The reason why no procurement funds are allocated at 
this point in time is because they are not ready for 
production.
    I am not concerned so much about not having procurement 
funds as I am about making sure that those programs progress as 
rapidly as possible so that we can procure them. I believe in 
the next 2 to 3 years those programs will be in a position to 
add significant amounts of production money to buy those 
systems.

               THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE (THAAD)

    Senator Inouye. Where is THAAD at this time?
    General Kadish. THAAD is going through a redesign effort, 
and we are 2 years away from its first test, but it is making 
very good progress in our ground testing leading up to our 
first test program activities in early 2004, I believe. So in 
that particular case, if we do the right testing on the ground 
that we have programmed--which is, by the way, very expensive--
I believe that our testing program will have a high degree of 
success to begin with, and we will be able to move rapidly to 
procure those systems.
    Senator Inouye. What is the status of airborne laser (ABL)?
    General Kadish. The airborne laser program is making 
remarkable progress; however, we had to look very realistically 
at the schedule very recently, and we are projecting a first 
attempt at shoot-down with the airborne laser in the 2004 time 
frame, in the fall of 2004 calendar year, at this point in 
time.
    We have done a number of significant ground tests in the 
airborne laser that have shown us that we should have 
confidence, once we get over the integration phase of airborne 
laser, of actually integrating the laser capability into the 
aircraft. We would have a potential for a high degree of 
success in those tests.
    We do have a delay, however, in those tests, and we are 
going to have to deal with that, but I see nothing that is 
fatally flawed in the approach at this point in time on 
airborne laser.

                             PATRIOT PAC-3

    Senator Inouye. What is the status of the PACs?
    General Kadish. I am sorry?
    Senator Inouye. Are we ready to deploy some of them?
    General Kadish. Patriot 3s?
    Senator Inouye. Yes.
    General Kadish. Yes. As a matter of fact, we are in very 
early limited procurement of the Patriot 3s. The last time I 
looked at the numbers, I think we had over 20 missiles already 
in deployment status, potentially, and we are building those 
every month. So we are in the very early stages, but we do have 
an initial capability for Patriot 3.
    Senator Inouye. Do you know if this year our Nation will 
formally withdraw from the ABM Treaty? Can you describe for the 
committee what withholding withdrawing from the ABM Treaty 
means in practical terms for your program? That is, what key 
testing programs can now move forward, what construction and 
development programs can now be undertaken?
    General Kadish. The withdrawal from the Treaty is having a 
big effect on the program, as we look at what we can do without 
the Treaty constraints more in detail in the past few months. I 
think there are basically two emerging elements of the treaty 
that will be very apparent to us over the next 6 to 8 months.
    The first area that has developed, and I think that it is 
significant, is that we are looking very differently at our 
sensor capability, in light of the Treaty withdrawal, on our 
ability to look at radar capability, and other sensors that 
might have been prohibited by the Treaty for use in our overall 
system effectiveness. Of course, one of the rules for missile 
defense using sensors is: The closer your sensors are to the 
launching missile, the better off we are in the system's 
effectiveness.
    So this is a very important element, and one good example 
of that is the promise that using Aegis-class radars from our 
Aegis destroyers and cruisers might give us more effective use 
of our ground-based interceptors, and that was prohibited, for 
instance, by the Treaty in the past. So that is the first, most 
visible and most important area that we are feeling the effects 
of from the withdrawal of the Treaty.
    I think the second area that, of course, will be obvious, 
is that when we decide that we have enough technical and 
programmatic effectiveness, the administration and the Congress 
could decide to actually deploy the system without constraints 
to the Treaty. I would expect over the coming years that that 
one effect will be obviously very important to us.
    So those are just two examples of what is happening in 
regard to the Treaty effects on the program that I deal with 
every day.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
    Senator Stevens.
    Senator Stevens. Pardon me for going in and out, Mr. 
Chairman. There are other matters here on the floor.

                      CAPABILITY-BASED ACQUISITION

    General, I want to make sure if--that I understand this 
concept about spiral development capabilities-based 
acquisition. It is my understanding from my staff that the 
approach involves a great degree of flexibility compared to 
prior procedures, and that the Missile Defense Agency wants to 
reward successful efforts and discontinue the unsuccessful ones 
to build a missile defense architecture based on elements that 
have been proven to work and to move on when possible. Is that 
a correct summary?
    General Kadish. That is a correct top-level summary, 
Senator. There is a little bit more to this capability-based 
approach than meets the eye, and it gets very technical in the 
way we do acquisitions traditionally in the Department.
    Senator Stevens. Will this be less expensive in the long 
run, in terms of acquisition, than the older method?
    General Kadish. In my view--and this is an opinion at this 
point--it will be. There is a reason for that. What we tend to 
do in the Department with very mature technologies, for 
instance, we have been building airplanes--I think, next year, 
in 2003, it will be 100 years that we have been building 
airplanes in this country, and we have a very stylized and very 
good requirement system that has moved the state of the art of 
mature technologies, like aircraft development, very well, and 
it has given us the greatest air force in the world.
    What we are dealing with here is a situation where the 
technology is uncertain. We have been after ballistic missile 
defense for 25 years, in earnest, probably, and 40 years, and 
50 years has been the maturity of the ballistic missile itself.
    So we are not advancing a mature state of the art. In the 
requirements space process, we would spend generally the time 
and money required to meet a specific requirement that we knew 
and specified very well. In the case for an airplane, for 
instance, it might be how far it goes with a specific payload, 
and we can do that in a very orderly process, and we have many 
examples of that in the programs that are before the Congress 
today.
    In the case of missile defense, there is a little bit more 
give-and-take that is required in an unprecedented technology. 
Rather than setting a goal and not knowing whether you can meet 
it technically, and spend any amount of time and money required 
to meet that, we believe we can take it off in chunks, and do 
what is possible, and match that versus what is needed. In the 
end, I believe that that process will be a lot less expensive 
than if we went with the traditional requirements-based 
approach.
    Senator Stevens. Well, I do not want to be impertinent, but 
it sounds like you are saying that if we set the goal for a 
supersonic jet, and all three would have failed, we would have 
never had the airplane, but on the other hand, what was needed 
in 2003 was not an integrated, mature system. I am not sure how 
these parts fit together, if we abandon part of them along the 
line. Tell me, how do you fit the parts together if you abandon 
one?
    General Kadish. Well, it is not a question of abandoning. 
It is trying to set the goal such that they are achievable 
within a time frame for a specific cost. For instance, on a 
missile defense system, we would want to have a certain level 
of effectiveness in the missile defense level, and it could be 
set very high to push the state of the art, but in our case, 
the state of the art is what it is.

                       TECHNOLOGY AND INTEGRATION

    Senator Stevens. Maybe I was misled, and I guess--I think I 
can say this: At one of the briefings I asked a question, that 
is not on the record, at a classified briefing, and I asked the 
question, ``What is the problem here?'' And the answer was that 
the problem is integration of the system, not developing 
technology. Are we saying we do have technology problems now?
    General Kadish. Well, I included integration in the 
technology basket, and that might be part of the problem with 
understanding----
    Senator Stevens. I do not want to take too much time. Let 
me get a little provincial here, and ask you about the Greeley 
Testbed. Can you tell us what the schedule is, status of 
construction, et cetera? What do we see, and is there enough 
money in the budget to proceed this year, as indicated?
    General Kadish. I believe there is enough money in the 
budget to execute the program to build that testbed. We are on 
schedule. I think we are a little less than 900 days away from 
our target date of September of 2004 for that capability to be 
in place, and to use it for ground and integration testing. So 
I believe it is in pretty good shape. We are getting ready to 
issue more contracts to----
    Senator Stevens. How many interceptors will be in the first 
phase?
    General Kadish. For the testbed, it is five interceptors at 
this point, and possibly a spare, depending on what the further 
analysis tells us.

                      NUCLEAR TIPPED INTERCEPTORS

    Senator Stevens. There has been speculation in the press, 
both in Alaska and nationally, that the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense is exploring nuclear tip missile interceptors, and 
that would replace the interceptors that are currently in the 
plan. We have not appropriated any funds, nor have we 
authorized any nuclear interceptors. Are there any being 
considered in terms of this testbed?
    General Kadish. No, Senator. We have no part of our program 
that involves nuclear-tipped interceptors; however, people do 
think about those types of things across a broad range when you 
are dealing with missile defense.
    Senator Stevens. Well, I hope whoever thought about it in 
the Secretary of Defense's office is soon in a think tank.
    General Kadish. Well, the Defense Science Board indicated--
--
    Senator Stevens. That has alarmed my people to no end, just 
absolutely no end, and I do not see any reason for it at all, 
and I would fire the guy. I am serious. We should not have 
people thinking out loud on the job, and speculating as to the 
future possibilities, when we are dealing with the reality of 
trying to get a missile defense system. It really--well, I 
cannot say that. It aggravates me. It is obvious. It makes me 
mad.

                         ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS

    Could I ask you one last question? And that is, you are 
looking at a block development, a 2-year program for this. Are 
we going to be able to use annual appropriations on a 2-year 
block program?
    General Kadish. Yes, Senator, I believe so. We are looking 
at what we can do in a 2-year time frame from a developmental 
standpoint, and the appropriations would fall just like they 
traditionally have all the time.
    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, General. I mean no offense, except against that 
guy who has caused us so many night calls since it has been----
    General Kadish. I have gotten a few of those calls myself.
    Senator Stevens. Yes, I am sure you have. It is just--I do 
not know. The press seems to report speculation a lot faster 
than they do fact.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Kadish. But I would like to make it clear, our 
primary technology right now, that we are having success with, 
is hit-to-kill, which is pure collision, kinetic energy, that 
destructs a mechanism.
    Senator Stevens. And no nuclear involvement at all?
    General Kadish. None, whatsoever.
    Senator Stevens. Thank you.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Cochran.

                          AIRBORNE LASER (ABL)

    Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    General Kadish, let me ask you about the likelihood of 
being able to keep the schedule on the airborne laser. I 
understand that you have a goal for a successful intercept 
using the airborne laser by 2004.
    General Kadish. That is correct.
    Senator Cochran. What is the likelihood, do you think, that 
you will be able to meet that schedule?
    General Kadish. Well, we took a real hard look at the 
schedule in the fall of this past year, and that is where we 
set our expectation in the fall of 2004, which is basically 1 
year difference from what we originally thought we could do, 
and the reason for that was that, although there was no one 
item that was causing our schedule problems to be--that you 
could point to as a significant flaw, there were a lot of 
things that were being delayed, because of the complexity of 
that particular revolutionary technology.
    So 2004 was set at about a 80 to 90 percent confidence in 
the schedule, to give us a point in time where we think that 
that kind of likelihood would produce the shootdown.
    Now, as with anything of this nature, that is our best 
estimate. We believe, with some confidence, that we can make it 
plus or minus a couple of months in that area, and we have to 
work hard to make it happen. So that is our status right now, 
but I think over the next 6 to 8 months, more data will come 
available to us, and we will have to take another look at it in 
the fall time frame.
    Senator Cochran. The budget forecast for the airborne laser 
includes about $30 million to begin procurement of a second 
airborne laser 747 aircraft, which I am told is being purchased 
from the commercial production line, rather than as a military 
purchase. Could you explain why you are taking this approach, 
and what the consequences would be if procurement of the 
aircraft does not begin this year?
    General Kadish. Well, the idea of adding the second 
aircraft has a couple of aspects associated with it that are 
pretty, I think, important to the program. The aircraft we are 
building today is a demonstration aircraft, and we have learned 
an awful lot about how to build the inside of that 747 with the 
laser. I just told you about our confidence in actually making 
that happen. What the second aircraft would give us, because of 
the lead times involved, is an ability to put a better design 
approach and capitalize on what we have learned into a second 
aircraft, to further the development of the airborne laser 
concept. So we would actually have an air frame--a commercial 
airliner, off the line, ready for our use in a few years to 
actually move this program along more rapidly than if we did 
not have that aircraft.
    So I look at it as an ability to take what we have learned 
off the demonstration aircraft, the first aircraft, start the 
process of building a better airborne laser with the second 
aircraft, and then be in a position, time-wise, not to have to 
start that process 2 or 3 years later, if we got delayed. So it 
is basically an enhancement to the overall development, and in 
my view, a risk reduction effort. Since it is a commercial 
aircraft, the risk is not as high as if we militarized or 
bought something different than a 747.

                SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) LOW

    Senator Cochran. Senator Stevens mentioned the SBIRS Low 
program, the sensors that would be an important element in a 
ballistic missile capability. In your prepared testimony, you 
mention that SBIRS Low would not be subject to some of the risk 
associated with ground-based radars. You have to have a system, 
either a ground-based system--am I right--or something in space 
in order for a ballistic missile system to work. Is that an 
essential element of the system, or the program?
    General Kadish. Both radars and space-based sensors are 
important elements of our thinking about an effective system. 
If I might take a minute to explain why that is important, I 
think it would help.
    Radars, what we call X-band radars, in particular, are very 
accurate long-range radars. They suffer from the fact, however, 
that they have to be located in the right position to do their 
job. So they are very expensive, and when they are in place, 
they do a good job, but you have to put them somewhere. One of 
the rules of missile defense, as I alluded to earlier, was the 
closer they are to the launch point, the better off we are in 
terms of their effectiveness. So although they are a very 
important component, they do have their disadvantages.
    Now, when you go to space with a sensor--it is very 
difficult to put radars in space, so we look at infrared 
sensors, in this case. You can get global coverage and solve 
that geography problem with the space-based approach. Those two 
sensors working in concert also complicate the adversaries' 
ability to fool any one of them. So that is why these are 
complementary and potentially important.
    Now, from an affordability standpoint, the argument has 
been, and I think will continue to be, whether both of those 
are affordable in this sense. I do not think that we have 
enough information that is compelling enough, at least to us 
right now, that says we ought to choose between radars and 
space-based sensors. At this point, we need to know a little 
bit more about the space-based sensors by putting them on 
orbit, experimenting with them, and then deciding whether or 
not, either technically or for affordability reasons, we ought 
to make those trades. So that is why we want to carry both of 
these efforts together at this point.
    Senator Cochran. It was disturbing to me last year that we 
saw some changes in the budget on SBIRS Low. We provided some 
language in conference with the House that gave the 
administration some latitude to make a decision along the lines 
that you are suggesting would be appropriate. Does this budget 
contain sufficient funding to help achieve that goal, or will 
we have to add additional funds to move this program along so 
that we can actually have a sensor developed and placed in 
space, so we can test it and see how it works?
    General Kadish. At this point, I think, from a 2003 and a 
2002 perspective, we might have to add some more money. We just 
provided the committee a report, I believe, in the last couple 
of days, of what our plans are to restructure SBIRS Low, and 
then as a part of that report, I believe we indicated that we 
will put forth a reprogramming in fiscal year 2002, and adjust 
the program in the out-years to accommodate this new 
restructure.
    So we will probably have to look at adding some money in 
the 2002 time frame, with a reprogramming action, to lower the 
risk in this program, to the degree that we feel comfortable 
with. Those numbers and that effort will be a separate action 
coming to the committee.

                                 ARROW

    Senator Cochran. Okay. Last year, Congress appropriated $40 
million to set up a co-production capability in the United 
States for the Arrow missile. You have requested another $5 
million this year. How important is it to the Arrow program to 
have this co-production capacity in the United States?
    General Kadish. Well, we believe it was very beneficial to 
the Arrow program to have that capability to co-produce Arrow 
in the United States, as basically a very straightforward 
reason, in my view.
    We have worked with the Israelis to buy--I believe the 
number is 200 Arrow missiles and three batteries, and the 
current arrangement is for Israel to make about two missiles 
per month in the process. That very low rate of production 
limits their ability to populate those batteries in a time 
frame that we would like. So this co-production effort with the 
United States allows us to do more production per unit time, 
and, therefore, fill out those batteries sooner than would 
ordinarily be done.
    Senator Cochran. I recall from a visit to Israel that there 
were some simulations and some tests that were being managed in 
concert with our capabilities in Huntsville, Alabama. Do you 
think that this program provides some benefits for us in terms 
of understanding technologies, and contributes to our 
development of ballistic missile capabilities?
    General Kadish. I believe it does, and it has. There are 
some things we learned from the Arrow program that have been 
very useful to us, and I expect that that will continue.
    Senator Cochran. We talk about sharing information and some 
of the benefits of the ballistic missile program with other 
allies as well. We have talked about Russia; we have talked 
about Japan.

                           ALLIED COOPERATION

    There is a specific program, the Medium Extended Air 
Defense Systems (MEADS) program, that involved, I think, 
Germany and Italy at one point, and the funding has not been 
forthcoming at levels that were earlier anticipated. But my 
question is: Is the collaboration with allies in these specific 
instances that I have mentioned--is it beneficial, or have we 
done enough of it at this point to really know whether we have 
benefits that we can derive from working closely with trusted 
allies on these issues?
    General Kadish. I think it is very beneficial to continue 
to work with our allies on missile defense technology. It is a 
difficult road to go down in this area because of the 
restrictions that tend to be put on the high technology that we 
have now for export controls, and other reasons, but I believe 
that one of the chief stumbling blocks, in my view, at least, 
is that the ABM Treaty specifically prohibited us from engaging 
our allies against--especially against long-range missile 
defense technologies. With our withdrawal from the Treaty, that 
window opens for us, so that we could look even broader among 
our allies for help in even specific technologies that might be 
useful to us, as well as share ours with them.
    So I believe that there will be a more intense look at 
allied cooperation in our program as we go forward in the 
coming weeks, months, and years.
    Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                             SMALL BUSINESS

    General Kadish, referring to the Missile Defense National 
Team, I want to discuss your funding plans briefly, and the 
role of small business. I believe it is critical to ensure that 
the expertise and capabilities that reside in our small 
business technical base that supports the Major Defense Agency 
(MDA) remains strong and viable.
    In supporting the Missile Defense National Team (MDNT), I 
hope a situation does not arise that would require you to 
migrate funds away from equivocal programs and offices like the 
Ground-Based Midcourse Program Office. Such funding issues 
might have a far-reaching impact on systems engineering and 
technical assistance contractors who contribute to the success 
of our missile defense and space programs.
    Concern exists, especially in the smaller contract 
families, that migrating funds to support MDNT might lead to a 
migration of talent away from small business. With these 
concerns in mind, can you discuss how you plan to fund the 
Missile Defense National Team during the remainder of 2002, and 
beyond?
    General Kadish. Well, Senator, I might just state up front 
that the small business community is extremely important to us 
across a broad range of efforts within missile defense.
    Senator Shelby. So much of the talent lies there, does it 
not?
    General Kadish. Well, an awful lot of talent lies there, 
and some of our problems are making sure we get at it, both for 
short-term and long-term needs. Although not directly related 
to the systems engineering activity, we have a very active 
broad-range small business program and an innovative research 
program that I think we are going to spend at least $130 
million on this year.
    Now, with regard to the elements, specifically ground-
based, the source of the funds for the National Team idea, I 
think we have accommodated without effect to the rest of the 
program, because of the----
    Senator Shelby. Without migrating the funds?
    General Kadish. Without migrating funds. Now, there are 
always puts and takes, and daily decisions that many thousands 
of people make, so I am not sure I can say categorically that 
something did not get moved around for whatever reason; 
however, that is not our intent.
    But I want to make clear that the National Team idea is 
very circumscribed in its function, in that it does--it helps 
us do the engineering required for a multi-faceted, ground-
based, sea-based, multi-service type of system that we could 
have a potential to integrate. So I do not see this to be a 
very large operation in the future. If it does, I think it 
probably got out of control.
    So somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 million to $130 
million a year is what I have been looking at for the specific 
systems engineering activity, and that is accommodated within 
our budget activities.
    One of the characteristics that, unfortunately, we are 
trying to find out how to deal with with small business is: The 
nature of the National Team is to get individuals from 
companies into this engineering environment, and we want the 
best. And to get into that environment, they have to sign very 
stringent conflict of interest clauses, which prohibit them 
from being used in any competition or any other future work 
that we might put out to the larger industry.
    So that represents a very high opportunity cost to each one 
of the companies. Do they put their best people in that 
environment or not? That has been a struggle for all the 
companies, not just the small business, and we are working our 
way through that, but there is no intent to exclude them. Quite 
the contrary. We need the best, and we go wherever we can to 
find them. If they can meet the requirements, then they are in.

                             PATRIOT PAC-3

    Senator Shelby. On the Patriot, the PAC-3, would you 
discuss the status of the conditions being met, that is, 
especially the issue of full funding for PAC-3?
    General Kadish. The full funding for procurement?
    Senator Shelby. Yes. In other words, your 2003 budget 
request again supports moving the PAC-3 program to the Army. 
Are you--you are very familiar with all of this. And what is 
the issue--where are we on the issue of full funding?
    General Kadish. Well, this tennis match we have between 
whether it is in our budget or the Army's budget really gets 
confusing sometimes even to me, but where we are with Patriot 
(PAC-3) is that we have money in the budget, whether it is in 
our budget or the Army's budget, depending on where the 
transfer was made, for, I believe, 1,100 missiles. I will have 
to get you the exact number.
    Senator Shelby. It is 1,159 missiles, but the Army 
requirement is at least 2,200 missiles.
    General Kadish. Those are inventory objectives----
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    General Kadish [continuing]. Of the Army. The way these 
programs work, the Department and the Congress either fund the 
inventory objective or they do not, so it is a stake in the 
ground.
    Now, we are in discussions with Mr. Aldridge and the Army 
about who is going to make and how we are going to make the 
full rate production decision on PAC--on Patriot 3, and I think 
in that process, and in the 2004 budget process, particularly, 
adjustments will be made to the total inventory. So I think 
that process is under control, but is not fully vetted yet in 
terms of what the number is really going to be.

               THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE (THADD)

    Senator Shelby. And I have run--well, I have a minute or 
so. I will go to the THAAD program. I understand it is doing a 
lot better.
    General Kadish. Well----
    Senator Shelby. I would like your comments on it.
    General Kadish. All the indicators--we restructured that 
program, and I have been criticized for being way too 
conservative in putting in a lot of ground testing in the 
process, but I think that is the right thing to do. What we are 
seeing in THAAD right now is the coming to fruition of those 
plans that we have made to ensure that when we get the flight 
tests, we have every chance of being successful and move 
rapidly to various flight tests.
    What is key to that is the ground testing of the piece 
parts, and then into larger assemblies, and into the final 
assembly, and that takes time. It takes time, and it takes 
money.
    So we are spending that capital now, the time and money, 
and we are asking you for, I think, $950 million next year for 
this, and to be patient with us in actually getting through 
this early, very critical design phase.
    Senator Shelby. Are you fairly confident that we are now on 
the right track?
    General Kadish. I believe we are. We are 22 percent done in 
the program, and we are ahead of costs, and ahead of schedule, 
but that does not mean much to me now. I want to wait until we 
are 85 percent done, and be ahead of costs and ahead of 
schedule, but all the trends are in the right direction.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you.
    Senator Domenici.
    Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                        MISSILE DEFENSE SPENDING

    It is nice to see you again, General. From the information 
that I have put together, the Missile Defense Agency, since 
1985, has spent $73.5 billion in research and development, and 
on various forms of missile defense. Critics will point out 
that after this spending, there remains no deployed missile 
defense system in the United States or overseas. How do we 
answer that question?
    General Kadish. Well, I think there are two answers in the 
way I try to discuss that issue. The first is that that level 
of spending, in an unprecedented endeavor called missile 
defense, has gotten us to the point where we are today, and 
that point is that we are at a program and technological 
crossroads where I believe that we are increasingly confident 
that hit-to-kill can work, and that the next step is to make it 
work reliably enough to make it effective, and we are on the 
verge of doing that.
    So to the degree that the country has spent the treasury in 
this regard, we, I think, have done very well getting to the 
point we are at now. We can argue about whether we should have 
gotten there earlier, based on some of our management 
activities, but on balance, that investment is starting to pay 
off.
    In regard to a deployed missile defense capability, we 
declared--it was a small step, but a large one at the same 
time. We declared Patriot 3 capable with 16 missiles back in 
September, and we are building that inventory now. So from a 
hit-to-kill perspective, we do have our first field capability, 
as small as it is, but we now set that bar as a milestone to 
our journey to an effective missile defense.
    Senator Domenici. General, the data from the MDA shows that 
the annual appropriations of all forms of missile defense 
almost doubled from the end of President Clinton's 
administration through the Bush administration.
    What measures have been taken to ensure that the controls 
over this increase funding request will remain intact and 
adequate? Does part of the increase under President Bush result 
from the budget request being more fully funded, in terms of 
being able to accomplish declared goals for various programs or 
not?
    General Kadish. I think the controls that we have on the 
spending of the money are as tight as they have been all along. 
In fact, we are paying an awful lot of attention to that, and 
our statistics on obligation rates and expenditure rates are 
meeting all the targets that we set for them.
    I do think, in regard to your last question, that increase 
represents more of a full funding of our efforts, as opposed to 
an increase in our activity, in the short term. Now, we will 
change that over time, as we look at boost phase and things of 
that nature, but our strategy really has been to make sure that 
we can fund what we are doing today, and move as rapidly as we 
can with the program.
    Senator Domenici. I have another round. When I come back, I 
will ask them.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Feinstein.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
would like to ask that my statement be placed in the record, if 
I might.
    Senator Inouye. So ordered.
    [The statement follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein

    Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you General Kadish for 
joining us today. I am pleased to be here today as well, as I 
have many questions regarding missile defense. When Deputy 
Secretary Wolfowitz testified before this committee on March 
27th of this year, I voiced some of those questions in the 
broader context of our overall national defense strategy.
    Today's discussion affords us the opportunity to delve 
deeper into the details of the program, and as we all know, the 
devil is in the details.
    We are currently fighting an asymmetrical global war on 
terrorism that requires a shift in our strategic thinking. This 
war has forced us to confront the old cold war mentality that 
is so prevalent in defense circles, and instead embrace change 
in force structure and procurement.
    Unfortunately, it appears that our current missile defense 
program may in many ways represent the old way of doing 
business.
    I am concerned that the testing, cost and strategic arms 
control implications of the Administration's current missile 
defense plans may detract valuable resources from more pressing 
security needs, such as the war on terrorism.
    The price tag associated with this year's Research, 
Development, Testing and Evaluation program for missile defense 
has produced considerable sticker shock for many of us on this 
committee.
    I, for one, am far from convinced that we have achieved the 
technical maturity required to field an effective missile 
defense system. Systems such as SBIR's Low (Space Based 
Infrared) are, by some estimates, more than a decade away from 
being operationally deployable. Additionally, our testing 
criteria frequently fails to accurately replicate real world 
intercept scenarios, including countermeasures. There also 
remains much debate over the warhead options available, in 
particular the validity of the ``hit to kill'' approach being 
proposed.
    Perhaps of greatest concern to me is the misdirection of 
funds for an expensive, ``feel-good'' system that does not 
adequately address the potential threats we face.
    Do we, for example, face a greater threat from an incoming 
ballistic missile, or from a ``dirty'' radiological bomb that 
was smuggled into a U.S. port in a shipping container?
    Or for that matter, what are we doing to defend against the 
possible threat of a homicide bomber in downtown Washington, DC 
or San Francisco?
    In a time of limited budgetary resources we have an 
obligation to use the taxpayers funds wisely.
    I look forward to discussing these important issues with 
you so that I may get a better understanding of your proposed 
funding and implementation plan.
    Thank you.

                      NUCLEAR TIPPED INTERCEPTORS

    Senator Feinstein. I would like to continue along the lines 
that Senator Stevens did, who indicated his strong opposition 
to any nuclear tipping of these missiles. I have before me the 
April 11th article in The Washington Post, General, which 
rather clearly states that the Secretary of Defense has opened 
the door to the possible use of nuclear-tipped interceptors in 
a national missile defense system, and that the chairman of the 
Defense Science Board has received encouragement from Secretary 
Rumsfeld to begin exploring the idea as part of an upcoming 
study of alternative approaches to intercepting enemy missiles.
    I want to concur with Senator Stevens. I want to say that I 
find that just absolutely inexplicable, how we would even 
explore the use of nuclear-tipped interceptors, with what they 
might do with radiological fallout to people, and to countries. 
If that is the case, I think that that really makes this whole 
national missile defense system just a reprehensible effort.

                                 COSTS

    We are spending $7.5 billion this year on research that 
still nobody knows is really workable on a consistent basis. So 
I really want the record to reflect what I believe would be the 
American reaction to this as well, as just being 
unconscionable, and really one not to be countenanced at 
virtually any cost.
    Secretary Rumsfeld also announced in January a 
reorganization of our missile defense efforts, creating the 
agency that you head, and the current 2002 defense 
authorization bill, including several new reporting 
requirements that were applied to the ballistic missile defense 
organizations, and various other organizations, such as the 
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. It has some 
oversight or review of the missile defense program.
    My question to you, General Kadish, is when do you expect 
to finish the report to Congress on cost, schedule, testing, 
and performance goals for ballistic missile defense programs 
required in Section 232 of the 2002 defense bill, which was due 
on February 1 of this year?
    General Kadish. Senator, we are trying very hard to meet 
all the reporting requirements levied on us last year, and to 
do it in a way that makes sense. If I remember right, that 
particular report, we believe we satisfied with the actual 
submission of the budget.
    Now, I think there was some discussion with the 
documentation that we actually submitted to the Congress that 
supported our budget activity. If that is not sufficient, I 
will have to go back and look at it, but that is my 
recollection at this point.
    Senator Feinstein. Would you mind then resubmitting that 
portion of that submission to us, which answers the provisions 
of Section 232, in your opinion?
    General Kadish. To the best of our ability, yes, Senator.
    Senator Feinstein. I would appreciate that. Thank you very 
much.

                                 RADAR

    In earlier years, General, we were told that the X-band 
radar on Shemya was critical to the effectiveness of the 
program. Now, your R-2 documents show that you plan initial 
development of a test X-band radar, but it is unclear if it 
will be at Shemya Island or not.
    Where will this be located? If it is not at Shemya, how 
will this affect the contingency capability you plan to deploy 
at Fort Greeley? And is it not correct that even with an 
upgraded Cobra Dane radar on Shemya Island, the contingency 
capability will be severely limited in its discrimination 
capabilities?
    General Kadish. Let me take the last part of your question 
first, if you do not mind. A contingency capability is 
basically that; that is, it is a lot less than what we would 
like to have in any of the systems, should we find it useful to 
declare that capability. Certainly, some more testing needs to 
go.
    It will have, in my view, some inherent countermeasure 
capability, but it will not be what we would have postulated 
with the previous National Missile Defense (NMD)-type program, 
with the big X-band radar at Shemya, if that is certainly the 
case. But that does not mean it does not have capability to 
offer a very, very basic defense. So in a more classified 
forum----
    Senator Feinstein. So you are saying it would not limit its 
discrimination capabilities.
    General Kadish. It would limit the discrimination 
capability, but the capabilities it would have would be 
sufficient for what we expected it to do, which would be a lot 
less than what we had with the NMD architecture that we 
previously talked about.
    So if we decide through testing and our evaluation of the 
system that that testbed has the capability to be used, this 
will all come out and be very well understood by the decision 
makers.
    Senator Feinstein. All right. What about its location at 
the--of the X-Band Radar (XBR) at Shemya?
    General Kadish. We have, today, a prototype X-band radar at 
Kwajalin Island. It is there for a lot of reasons, but it is 
not the ideal place for our test program to have that X-band 
radar.
    So two things have been happening. The first is, the idea 
of having the radar at Shemya, against an operational mission 
in the Pacific, it was an ideal location, just because if you 
look on a map where Shemya is in Alaska, it is the closest U.S. 
territory to North Korea, for instance. So that was a very good 
location from an operations standpoint.
    We would like, but no decision has been made, to move to a 
deployment activity that would include that type of radar, so 
it is not there in our budget. What is there is an idea that we 
want to build another X-band radar for our test program, and we 
have not decided where that radar should be just yet, whether 
it would be better in the Hawaiian Island area, whether it 
would be useful at Shemya for test purposes, or someplace else, 
to include a mobile X-band radar on some sort of a sea-based 
platform. We are in the process of trying to decide what to do 
about that, and we have not made the final decisions on it yet.
    There are advantages to each one of those locations for 
different reasons.
    Senator Feinstein. So Shemya may be in the picture. May I 
ask this question? If it is not Shemya, how is this going to 
affect the contingency capability you plan to deploy at Fort 
Greeley?
    General Kadish. The contingency capability that might 
reside at Fort Greeley would be a lot less than if we had an X-
band radar in that part of the world.
    Senator Feinstein. Can you quantify that for us----
    General Kadish. Well, let me put----
    Senator Feinstein [continuing]. In terms of dollars, or any 
way you can in an unclassified setting, to quantify it?
    General Kadish. What X-band radars and sensors give us of 
that nature is the ability to watch a threat warhead very 
precisely, and measure things in very minute ways. Let me give 
you an example.
    If we had an X-band radar that we might use for the THAAD 
program here in Washington, we can see the rotation of a golf 
ball over Seattle in our data. So it is a very useful thing to 
have. To get the kind of distances we need up in the missile 
defense architectures against long-range missiles, these have 
to be very powerful radars. If you do not have them, then you 
are relying only on the sensors that are less precise than an 
X-band radar, which is the kill vehicle--the infrared sensors 
on the kill vehicle itself, and some early warning radars that 
are less accurate in the process, like the Cobra Dane radar 
that we might have at Shemya today. So the idea of an X-band 
radar addition would be very, very precise information to guide 
that interceptor better than would ordinarily be done.
    However, even with those X-band radars not as part of the 
architecture, there is, we believe, a good capability inherent 
in the kill vehicle and our early-warning radars to provide us 
a missile defense capability should testing prove it to be 
effective. I do not know how to say it any better than that. It 
is not what we want, but it is useful.
    Senator Feinstein. So you are saying that the expenditure 
for Fort Greeley would remain the same----
    General Kadish. It would remain the same.
    Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Even if it was not at 
Shemya?
    General Kadish. The expenditure for Fort Greeley would 
remain the same. If we wanted to add a radar, it would be an 
increment of hundreds of millions of dollars above what we are 
requesting right now to do Shemya. I think the X-band radar----
    Senator Feinstein. Other than using Kwajalin.
    General Kadish. Other than using Kwajalin, which is out of 
position for operational uses.
    Senator Feinstein. So we could anticipate that there is 
going to be an additional amount.
    General Kadish. I think that as we look at deploying more 
effective missile defenses beyond the testbed, where we would 
prove the integration of this system to ourselves, in my view, 
it would be more resources required to do that. Yes.
    Senator Feinstein. Mr. Chairman, I guess my time is up. I 
did have a couple more questions. May I submit them, please?
    Senator Inouye. Without objection.

                           MDA SPENDING DATA

    General Kadish, to date, the committee has not received any 
spending data from your agency for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. 
Will you assure the committee that prior to our markup of the 
fiscal year 2003 bill that we will receive spending data from 
your agency?
    General Kadish. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will guarantee it as 
soon as we can.

                           NAVY AREA DEFENSE

    Senator Inouye. I appreciate that. General, as you may 
recall, during deliberations of the 2002 defense bill, the 
Pentagon notified the committee that it would cancel the Navy 
area-wide theater missile defense program. This decade-old 
program was designed to launch intercept missiles from ships to 
shoot down incoming warheads, but after having spent about $2.4 
billion, and then with expectations that the program might 
exceed estimates by more than 30 percent, the Pentagon said, 
``That is it.'' However, we have been advised that such a 
system still exists.
    Earlier this year, the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. 
Pacific Command testified to Congress that terminating the 
area-wide program was a blow to their plans of deploying 
ballistic missile defense as quickly to the Pacific theater. 
The Navy area program was our only ballistic missile defense 
system that used the explosive warhead found on--to destroy a 
target versus a more technically complex hit-to-kill technology 
found on the other BMD systems. Some argue that using explosive 
warheads would be more effective against, again, certain 
threats, such as Scuds, and less costly. What do you think is 
the future of this program? Is it completely dead?
    General Kadish. Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of 
going through a very intense look at what we need to do in 
light of the Navy area program cancellation right now. I would 
like to talk to you more about that in probably 3 or 4 weeks 
when we get the final decisions made there, but I would like to 
say this about the approach we are taking: We realize that the 
Navy area program had a very specific and very valuable 
contribution to missile defense, especially because it is 
mobile, and a forced-entry requirement exists.
    The problem we were having was that we were trying to 
integrate an infrared sensor with a radar sensor, and even 
though the blast fragmentation part of this might add value to 
it in certain circumstances, we could not make it work without 
spending a lot more time and money on it. At the same time, we 
were advancing our understanding of the hit-to-kill process.
    So what we are doing right now is: We are taking a very 
comprehensive look at all of our systems, and what we can do to 
solve the Navy area void that was created from an operational 
perspective. We are not ready to tell you what those answers 
are, because we have not made the final decision, but they look 
very promising in our ability to cover the threats that Navy 
area was supposed to cover, and hopefully can do it in a time 
frame that is not too far out of line with where we were going 
with Navy area to begin with.
    So if you would indulge me, I would like to wait maybe 
until the end of May to report to the committee on exactly what 
we can do there, and if we can do it earlier, we will.
    Senator Inouye. General, because of the sensitive nature of 
the next question on countermeasures, I will be submitting them 
for your consideration.
    General Kadish. Thank you.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Cochran?
    Senator Cochran. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Feinstein.

                                 THREAT

    Senator Feinstein. I have one other question. Just one 
quick statement: Being a Californian, and being very concerned 
as a member of the intelligence committee about the possibility 
of a dirty bomb coming in in a cargo container, and in spending 
time in Hong Kong last week with the chief executive and the 
port people to see how feasible it really is to push our 
borders to create a system internationally of search, certify, 
and sealing these containers, that, to me, seems the threat we 
face. And this seems such an unrealistic area, I just cannot 
point out to you the point/counterpoint of the world we live 
in, and the world you live in now.
    I just have to believe that the terrorist wars that we are 
in are not going to end anytime soon--in other words, for the 
next decade--and the improbability of a missile coming at us 
from a rogue nation that cannot be met with a reprisal that 
would certainly be so strong, and is so strong that it is an 
effective deterrent to such an attack, whereas we have no 
deterrent to protecting our borders from what is a very real 
threat, it kind of boggles my mind. I know this is not your 
problem, and I appreciate the work you are doing.

                              COST CONTROL

    Let me ask this last question. The 2003 budget has a lot of 
money for missile defense, and what I would like is your 
assurance that the program will stay on budget. For example, 
critics claim the cost estimate of the airborne laser testing 
subset is projected to increase from $10 billion to $23 
billion. I would like to know from you whether you believe that 
is true or false, and whether this program will stay on budget.
    General Kadish. Well, Senator, we are doing everything we 
can to make sure that our programs execute the way we plan 
them, but we are in a technology area, especially when you talk 
about something as revolutionary as an airborne laser 
capability, never been done before, certainly from an airplane.
    I am not sure I can guarantee you that we will not miss our 
estimates on what it takes to do these types of things, but 
what I can tell you is that everything that we are trying to do 
is--we are going to manage as best we can to ensure we bring 
that capability in for as little dollars as possible, and we 
are working every day to do that.
    Sometimes we are going to fail, but I do not know really 
what the ultimate cost of that capability is going to be right 
now, because we are at some of the critical phases of the 
program. But right now, the costs are under control, to the 
best of our ability. The indicators look like we are going to 
slip the schedule to the 2004 time frame, but even with that, 
we have a pretty clear idea of what needs to be done, and what 
dollars are required to make it happen.
    If we do not meet those goals, we will be back here next 
year telling you why, but we are doing our best.

                                 THREAT

    Senator Feinstein. Of course, it will not do anything for 
our problem with containers, 6 million a year which come into 
this country, and less than 1 percent searched. You do not have 
to answer that. It is just----
    General Kadish. On a personal note----
    Senator Feinstein. I do not mean to be difficult for you, 
but it is just--I mean the real world that I see out there, and 
the world that this meets, are just so different, it is 
unbelievable.
    General Kadish. Well, Senator, if I could offer to you, we 
have some views of the threat that I would be more than happy 
to share with you in a classified forum that may give you a 
different perspective.
    Senator Feinstein. I would like that very much, if you 
would, please. I would appreciate it. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Senator Inouye. Senator Domenici.
    Senator Domenici. Well, I might just say to the 
distinguished Senator from California, I did not visit any 
foreign countries recently to get information, but I would say 
to you, reference to such a threat as containers coming into 
America, and the enormous quantity and numbers, et cetera, as 
one of the new threats we have to confront, I would urge that 
you or your staff have one or more of the national laboratories 
brief you on the kind of technology that is in the process of 
being developed just for that kind of thing.
    Now, nobody had pushed them heretofore, because this was 
just a natural offshoot of some research. Now, obviously, 
somebody cares. We have so much potential out there in these 
fields, but we did not care about it. There were other things 
with higher priority, like the one you just brought to our 
attention here, but I think you will find in the sciences that 
there is tremendous breakthroughs on how they are going to do 
that, and tell you pretty well how long it will be before these 
things are fully developed, et cetera. I think it would be very 
helpful, and I thank you for listening.

                   SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE AVAILABILITY

    General, let me ask you: You are involved in leading a 
program that probably develops as much American science and 
technology as any other program we have. We pride ourselves 
with the space program, it is a science-based program, but they 
are doing--95 percent of what they are doing is the same thing 
being repeated, with some improvements, and a few new research 
prospects. But we are asking you all to do something very, very 
different. And I wonder if your program is suffering from, 
maybe I would call it brain drain, or maybe I would say there 
is not sufficient talent out there to appropriately bid these 
projects, and do the work in the fastest time frame.
    I am of the opinion that almost everything the United 
States is doing that requires a lot of scientists, a lot of 
physicists, a lot of engineers, we are running behind, because 
we just do not have enough. Your program is going to require a 
cadre of the most esoteric applications of physics, and 
dynamics, and other things. What is your assessment in that 
regard?
    General Kadish. Well, Senator, we get many tens of 
thousands of people working on the program right now, and they 
are doing a wonderful job for us, and they are very talented 
individuals. But as we look down the road to what we need to 
do, and where we need support from the country at large, I 
worry about it a lot, getting the types of talent we need to 
sustain that effort, and to make it better.
    The National Team idea of trying to focus talent, going out 
to the national laboratories as much as we can, hiring folks 
that would not ordinarily be in Government to come into 
Government, to help us with this problem, is a challenge that 
we are trying to face up to right now.
    In fact, if you read closely the letter that authorizes the 
Missile Defense Agency, signed by the Secretary in January, one 
of the key statements in that letter that I pay a lot of 
attention to is, is to try to get the best and the brightest to 
sustain the effort, and we are setting in process whatever we 
can think of to do that.
    Senator Domenici. Well, General, I would suggest to you--
and, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, if we can--that we permit 
you to use whatever you can of your program to excite young 
brainpower. We are not getting enough young people enthused 
about physics, and chemistry, and engineering, so if different 
agencies are trying to excite them, it would seem to me that 
without an awful lot of money being required, you could do some 
of your programs in ways that some post-docs, maybe double or 
triple the number of post-docs you have on these programs, 
because that is the way to get young talent hooked, and I use 
that word in its better sense, not just a pejorative sense, to 
get them interested.
    I would ask, if you are not too busy, if you might assign 
that to someone from the standpoint of working with the 
universities and laboratories on either post-docs, or guys who 
are still getting their doctorate, and have as many of them as 
you can, men, women, and minorities, get into this observation 
mode, with a bit of the excitement that comes from this. 
Obviously, there is a lot of excitement.
    General Kadish. Yes, Senator. In fact, that is a pretty 
good idea that we probably need to add to our toolbox here, and 
look at a little bit longer range than we might look for right 
now. In fact, let me get back to you on that, and tell me what 
you--tell you what we are going to do about it.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
    I have three other questions that I will submit for the 
record, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Inouye. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
            Questions Submitted to General Ronald T. Kadish
            Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                       overcoming countermeasures
    Question. General Kadish, many argue that the most difficult 
technical challenge facing our missile defense program is developing 
methods to overcome enemy countermeasures. How do you respond to 
critics who claim we are building a very complex, expensive missile 
defense system that can be foiled by inexpensive countermeasures such 
as simple balloon decoys or chaff?
    Answer. The Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) addresses the 
countermeasure challenge two ways--by a layered defense and by 
evaluating the threat target in many different and complementary ways. 
The BMDS will provide a capability to engage ballistic missile threats 
in all phases of flight. This includes opportunities to engage threats 
in their boost phase before they deploy the midcourse type of 
countermeasures mentioned in the question. The BMDS will employ sensors 
with multiple phenomenologies from which several discrimination 
features can be generated. Thus the countermeasures mentioned make 
identification of the warhead more challenging, but not impossible.
    Question. General, this situation appears somewhat similar to the 
``arms race'' mentality of the Cold War: we counter their weapons, they 
counter our countermeasures and so on. Is there any way to avoid such a 
``race?''
    Answer. The question of avoiding an arms race is one the Department 
has had to deal with in all mission areas. Countermeasures are part of 
the natural evolution of any military capability. Most weapon systems 
we have today are susceptible to countermeasures. All weapon systems 
will be scrutinized by potential adversaries and probed for weaknesses. 
In addition, the ``action-reaction'' cycle is not a new phenomenon, nor 
is it limited to the development of weapon systems. It also occurs in 
operational strategy and tactics. We can, however, slow this cycle by 
applying appropriate security measures to our development efforts. To 
the extent we can limit an adversary's understanding of our defensive 
capabilities, we can restrict their ability to develop countermeasures.
    Question. Will future tests of our missile defense system feature 
more complex decoys and other countermeasures?
    Answer. Yes. Our testing gets progressively more challenging. The 
BMDS will be tested against the threat capabilities of potential 
adversaries as described in the Adversary Capabilities Document. Tests 
will be designed to employ realistic scenarios and countermeasures. As 
projected threats become more complex, we will conduct tests with 
increasingly more stressing decoys and countermeasures.
    Question. General, press reports indicate the Department is 
considering using nuclear-tipped interceptors as part of our missile 
defense system. Do you have any thoughts on this matter?
    Answer. MDA is not designing, developing, or testing nuclear-tipped 
interceptors. It is Administration policy that we develop our missile 
defense program using non-nuclear ``hit-to-kill'' technologies. Our 
recent flight test history shows that we have proven that ``hit-to-
kill'' is a viable approach. Our current challenge is to show that our 
missile defense elements work reliably in increasingly complex 
environments. Our Ballistic Missile Defense System Test Bed is intended 
to demonstrate just that.
                        the management challenge
    Question. General Kadish, you have said that managing such a 
complex program as missile defense is every bit as challenging as some 
technology issues we face. To help meet that challenge, the Department 
established a new Missile Defense Agency, though this has come with 
some controversy. General, what are the key management challenges you 
face and how will the creation of this new agency help you manage the 
missile defense program?
    Answer. The primary management challenge I face is moving the 
program from element-centric to system-centric focus, integrating the 
formerly independent development efforts into a single system and 
facilitating the transitions during the acquisition cycle. This 
emphasizes the importance of communicating our vision to agencies 
external to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA): the Services, OSD, the 
Joint Staff, and the Congress. We are attacking this management 
challenge using a combination of new and more traditional acquisition, 
oversight, and coordination processes. When the Secretary of Defense 
renamed the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization the Missile Defense 
Agency, he did so in order to underscore the national priority placed 
on missile defense, and the need to provide the authority and structure 
consistent with development of a single, integrated missile defense 
system. In order to meet the uniquely complex and unprecedented 
challenges of developing the Ballistic Missile Defense System, the 
Secretary will look to the Senior Executive Council (SEC), chaired by 
the Deputy Secretary along with the Service Secretaries and the Under 
Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, for policy and 
programming guidance. In addition, the Under Secretary has created the 
Missile Defense Support Group and an associated Working Group for 
independent analysis and advice to the SEC and the MDA Director. These 
groups will help in developing a shared understanding of the BMDS and 
its progress. Through their advice and guidance, they will also help me 
manage the missile defense program. In order to communicate our vision 
to Congress and to help you understand our activities, we will submit 
the BMDS RDT&E Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), reports to Congress, 
our detailed annual Budget Justification documentation, frequent 
briefings and information to fulfill Sec. 232 (c) and (d) of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
    Question. Concerns have been raised about the MDA's new acquisition 
process restricting internal DOD and Congressional oversight. General, 
can you assure the Committee that Congress will have complete, 
unfettered oversight of the missile defense program, as it does for any 
other acquisition program?
    Answer. Yes. Internally, the Department has structured the program 
to better manage a very complex set of challenges, and provide for more 
focused oversight of MDA. MDA is reviewing all statutory and regulatory 
requirements in DOD 5000 and assessing how best to meet these 
requirements. Externally, our accountability will be just as 
transparent as in the past. There is no reduction in Congressional 
oversight. MDA continues to be subject to the federal acquisition 
system but is tailoring the traditional acquisition process to: (1) 
incorporate lessons-learned, (2) better align with best commercial 
practices, and (3) manage risk more prudently. Congress will continue 
to receive reports and have oversight of the single BMDS Major Defense 
Acquisition Program (MDAP) through the BMDS RDT&E System Acquisition 
Report, budget submissions, reports to Congress, and hearings. The 
reports will cover the entire BMDS program of development. Once force 
structure and production decisions have been made, the relevant 
procurement information will be available through normal Service 
channels.
    Question. What is the status of the ``national industry team'' and 
how will this team support your efforts to manage the program? Do you 
anticipate that the members will continue to participate fully once 
missile defense systems go into production?
    Answer. Although the Missile Defense National Team (MDNT) is in its 
initial build-up phase, the majority of the team is in place and 
working. The MDNT is comprised of Government, Federally Funded Research 
and Development Centers (FFRDC), System Engineering and Technical 
Assistance (SETA) contractors, and an industry team comprised of major 
defense contractors that are experienced in the development, 
integration and production of defense systems. The MDNT industry team 
members are currently assessing the existing capabilities of the 
missile defense elements so the MDNT can design and assess an 
integrated system. If changes are necessary, the MDNT industry team 
will, in collaboration with the rest of the MDNT members, propose 
modifications to existing elements and/or new program efforts to the 
Government. (The Government is the determination authority for any 
approved programs/modifications and maintains Total System Performance 
Responsibility (TSPR) over the BMD System.) The recommendations will be 
vetted using a Configuration Control Process chaired by the Government. 
As changes and new programs are approved, MDA will provide program 
direction to the element program managers. The MDNT, including the MDNT 
industry components, will continue to function after the elements go 
into production. As these elements deliver capabilities, the MDNT will 
assess those contributions to system performance. In addition, the MDNT 
will be continuing to design improvements to the system as threats 
change and technologies evolve.
                               abm treaty
    Question. General, are there any tests or programs funded in your 
fiscal year 2003 request that would cause a violation of the ABM 
Treaty, were we to remain a party to the treaty?
    Answer. Treaty compliance determinations depend on the specifics of 
the activities to be undertaken and on the interpretation of the 
particular treaty provisions applicable to those activities. Since it 
is not necessary to determine whether MDA activities after June 13, 
2002 comply with the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the 
Department of Defense is not undertaking the lengthy analysis required 
to answer such hypothetical questions. The expiration of the ABM Treaty 
will provide needed flexibility and eliminate impediments for all areas 
of our BMD program. For example:
  --Testing of ABM components (to support the development of a 
        Ballistic Missile Defense System to defeat long-range or 
        ``strategic'' ballistic missiles) will no longer be limited to 
        designated ABM test ranges (the United States presently has 
        two: Reagan Test Site and the White Sands Missile Range in New 
        Mexico). This will allow our agency to test missile defense 
        elements and components wherever that testing makes the most 
        sense.
  --The numerical limitations on ABM components (i.e., missiles, 
        launchers, and radars) set forth in the ABM Treaty, such as no 
        more than 15 ABM test launchers at ABM test ranges, will no 
        longer constrain our program and activities. This eliminates 
        the need to divert resources to dismantling ABM components, 
        such as ABM test launchers, before new ones can be constructed 
        in order to remain under the treaty's artificial ceiling.
  --Testing and deployment of missile defense components can be done in 
        any basing mode (i.e., sea-based, space-based, air-based, and 
        mobile land-based), all of which are currently prohibited by 
        the ABM Treaty. This will allow greater flexibility in both the 
        testing and the deployment of our missile defense systems. The 
        result should be greater protection for the United States, 
        forward deployed forces, and our allies.
  --The concurrent testing of ABM and non-ABM components will no longer 
        be prohibited. This will allow the testing, and ultimately the 
        deployment, of our missile defense systems in ways in which 
        they will be working together with other missile defense and 
        non-missile defense components (e.g., radars) to maximize 
        missile defense effectiveness and thus provide greater 
        protection.
    The limitations of the ABM Treaty on transferring ABM technology to 
other nations will expire with the Treaty. This will greatly enhance 
our ability to engage in cooperative programs with other nations to 
develop, produce, and operate a more capable BMD System.
    Question. General, you testified to Congress last year that the 
Airborne Laser shoot down test in 2004 would be the first to ``bump 
up'' against the ABM Treaty. Since that test has been delayed to 2005, 
what is now the first test or activity that would have violated the 
Treaty?
    Answer. MDA plans for Integrated Flight Test (IFT)-7 (which 
occurred in December 2001) to use an Aegis radar at the Reagan Test 
Site to track the interceptor and to use the Multiple Object Tracking 
Radar (MOTR) radar at Vandenberg Air Force Base to track the target 
were cancelled by the Secretary of Defense after he determined they 
would violate the ABM Treaty. Plans to use an Aegis radar and the MOTR 
radar in the same manner in IFT-8 (which occurred in March 2002) were 
similarly cancelled by the Under Secretary of Defense after he 
determined, consistent with the prior decision of the Secretary, that 
they would also violate the ABM Treaty. MDA also planned to use an 
Aegis radar in both IFT-7 and -8 to view the strategic ballistic 
missile target as it was being launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base. 
These plans raised complicated questions of treaty compliance that 
could not readily be resolved. Given the complexity of the compliance 
issues involved, the Under Secretary of Defense directed MDA to cancel 
plans to use the Aegis radar in this manner since, even if approved, 
some could nevertheless argue that it was a violation of the ABM 
Treaty. The next flight test in the series, IFT-9, will be conducted no 
earlier than July 2002, after the expiration of the ABM Treaty. We plan 
to use an Aegis radar in IFT-9 to view the strategic ballistic missile 
target as it is being launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in order 
to help us determine whether Aegis can provide early warning of missile 
attacks and guide interceptor missiles to their targets. After 
assessing the outcome of that test, we will consider ways to more fully 
integrate it into our Ground-Based Midcourse Defense tests. The Aegis 
data from IFT-9 is also needed to develop targeting software for the 
entire missile defense system and to improve the operational realism of 
our testing. As in IFT-7 and -8, questions about whether this type of 
Aegis participation in MDA integrated flight tests would be consistent 
with the ABM Treaty were never resolved within the Defense Department. 
The MOTR is no longer needed for IFT-9 due to high confidence of 
similar data being available from other sensors, sensors that 
participated successfully in IFTs 7 and 8.
    It should also be noted that MDA will begin interceptor silo 
construction in Alaska in late June 2002. Questions about whether these 
and other portions of the Alaska Test Bed were consistent with the ABM 
Treaty were never resolved within the Defense Department.
                   missile defense program execution
    Question. General Kadish, missile defense programs received 
significant funding increases last year, including programs such as the 
Airborne Laser and the Theater High Altitude Area Defense missile. Are 
you satisfied that these and other programs under your control are 
meeting their spending targets for fiscal year 2002?
    Answer. I am fully confident that these and other MDA Program 
Elements will meet their spending targets. Attached is a forecast that 
shows our plan to obligate close to 90 percent of the funds available 
to MDA in fiscal year 2002.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Forecast
                                                      Approp      Program    Released      Actual      End 1st
                 Program Element                      Amount      Amount      by OSD    Obligations      Year
                                                                                                     Obligations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THAAD............................................     872.481      846.901     846.901      642.265      823.317
NAVY AREA........................................     100.000       96.184      96.184       57.856       97.700
BOOST SEGMENT....................................     608.863      587.824     587.824      364.484      567.847
MIDCOURSE SEGMENT................................   3,820.534    3,675.994   3,475.994    1,725.920    3,444.897
SENSORS SEGMENT..................................     340.600      319.610     319.610      230.451      301.804
PRMRF............................................       6.571        6.571       6.571        4.100        6.571
BMD SYSTEM.......................................     819.084      793.062     793.062      327.145      743.354
PAC-3 (RDT&E)....................................     129.100      131.415     131.415       46.343      112.455
BMD TECHNOLOGY...................................     141.090      140.799     140.799       31.543      115.652
MGMT HQ--BMDO....................................      27.758       25.673      25.673        2.917       25.673
TERMINAL SEGMENT.................................     203.344      193.308     193.308       38.502      178.106
SMALL BUSINESS (SBIR)............................  ...........     145.102     145.102        7.000      129.141
PAC-3 (Proc).....................................     736.574      731.455     671.455      377.361      241.380
MILCON...........................................       8.299        8.169       8.169        1.250        6.355
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION..........................     (39.000)  ..........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL......................................   7,775.298    7,702.067   7,442.067    3,857.137    6,794.252
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: (1) Obligation and Expenditure data as of 31 March 2002. (2) Program Amount equals Appropriation Amount
  less Congressional reductions to include SBIR.

             controversial programs: navy area-wide defense
    Question. General, based on a recommendation from the Pentagon, the 
Congress last year eliminated funding for the Navy Area Wide program. 
Everyone agrees that there still exists the need for a Navy theater 
missile defense. What is your plan to replace the Navy Area Wide 
program?
    Answer. When the Navy Area program was cancelled, the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), USD 
(AT&L), tasked the Missile Defense Agency, in close consultation with 
the Navy, to address sea-based terminal ballistic missile defense 
capability as part of the integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System 
(BMDS). We have completed an in-depth review of potential options for 
development and fielding of a sea-based ballistic missile defense 
capability and will provide you with details of the new effort once USD 
(AT&L) has approved them.
    Question. General Kadish, we have heard that the Navy Area Wide 
program was particularly important for meeting the threat in the 
Pacific. How do you respond?
    Answer. I fully agree that sea-based ballistic missile defense 
provides an important and needed capability for the Pacific. Of 
particular note, a sea-based capability will provide ballistic missile 
defense in circumstances where deployment of land-based defenses may 
not be possible, such as underdeveloped theaters of operation and 
forced early entry operations.
    Question. When do you expect we can field a theater missile defense 
system in the Pacific, other than in Korea?
    Answer. The Sea-based Midcourse Defense (SMD) element of the 
Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) could provide a capability for 
the Pacific Theater with a limited production off-ramp decision in 
fiscal year 2004 with a sea-based option by late fiscal year 2006. 
However, with additional funding, an emergency capability could be 
available as early as fiscal year 2004.
    Question. Some argue that the ``explosive warhead'' technology 
found on the Navy Area Wide missile is better against some threats than 
the ``hit-to-kill'' vehicles found on our other missile defense 
weapons. Do you agree?
    Answer. The lethality community assessed the merits and demerits of 
both blast-fragmentation warheads and hit-to-kill technology earlier 
this year. Blast-fragmentation warheads have advantages in engagements 
where the target is maneuvering (e.g. maneuvering air breathers like 
cruise missiles). However, the current state of blast-fragmentation 
technology renders it impractical for exoatmospheric engagements of 
longer-range threats. In addition, the energy imparted to the target in 
the high-speed collisions resulting from intercepts of medium- and 
long-range ballistic missiles is several orders of magnitude larger for 
direct body-to-body hits compared to fragments hitting the threat. Hit-
to-kill is an environmentally ``clean'' kill, better against Weapons of 
Mass Destruction, technologically proven, has lots of energy without a 
warhead or nuclear effects.
              controversial programs: sbirs-low satellite
    Question. General Kadish, the Defense Department is in the midst of 
radically restructuring the Space-Based Infra-Red Satellite system. 
What is the status of this effort and can we expect a complete report 
on the program prior to our mark up of the fiscal year 2003 Defense 
Appropriations bill?
    Answer. The Department has restructured the SBIRS Low effort as an 
element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System. MDA will develop SBIRS 
Low using a capability-based acquisition approach and spiral 
development processes. Existing contracts are being modified and a new 
contract with TRW is being definitized for the development work. This 
restructure is described in a report delivered to the Congressional 
defense committees on 15 April 2002.
    Question. General, your budget requests about $294 million for the 
SBIRS-Low program in fiscal year 2003. Given the possibility that there 
may be radical changes to the program, how do you know that this figure 
is correct?
    Answer. The restructure of the SBIRS Low activity is already 
underway. A letter contract was awarded to TRW to begin work and will 
be fully definitized later this fiscal year. For fiscal year 2003, we 
will pursue parallel development work on Block 2006 satellites 
supporting the Test Bed and development work on Block 2008 satellites 
incorporating next-generation sensors and other components. The $294 
million budget request in fiscal year 2003 adequately funds the 
restructured program. We will address out-year funding adjustments to 
support the restructured program as part of our fiscal year 2004-2009 
planning process.
    Question. Some argue that a land-based radar system can replace the 
Space-based system. Do you agree?
    Answer. No. An effective BMDS capability will eventually require 
the appropriate mix of both land-based radar and space-based infrared 
sensors. Although a land-based radar system could provide an initial 
capability against near-term adversary capabilities along limited 
projected threat delivery corridors, MDA believes that SBIRS Low must 
proceed on the current development path to provide a credible 
capability against projected countermeasures for four reasons. First, 
although a large number of land-based X-band radar systems placed at 
strategic locations around the world could provide much of the sensor 
capability that a BMDS needs, radar effectiveness is limited against 
some projected adversary countermeasures. Second, an all-radar strategy 
using forward-deployed land-based radars relies on foreign basing in 
specific regions. The uncertainty in the U.S. ability to secure host 
nation agreements in the specific regions required is a very 
significant issue. Third, land-based radar is inherently limited to 
above-the-horizon sensing. Fourth, as adversary capabilities 
proliferate, threat delivery corridors increase to the point that a 
space-based system, that can track attacks from any point on the globe, 
becomes an essential element in the BMDS sensor mix. A BMDS with both 
land-based radar and SBIRS Low would provide the integrated sensor 
performance that an effective BMDS needs. Land-based radar and SBIRS 
Low's infrared technology are complementary and the combination is 
expected to be highly effective against countermeasures.
    Question. How would the costs of a land-based radar system compare 
to a space-based system? Is a land-based system feasible from an 
international political perspective?
    Answer. The most desirable mix of sensors is dependent on their 
integrated performance, cost, risk, and national need. MDA is currently 
evaluating integrated sensor performance, including some sensors that 
have previously not been considered due to ABM Treaty limitations. 
Therefore, the relative cost of land-based radar and a space-based 
infrared system is not known at this time.
    Although the possibility of a land-based defense for allies has not 
been formally discussed, there is no reason at this time to rule out 
such a system from an international political perspective.
               controversial programs: the thaad missile
    Question. General Kadish, last year's Defense Appropriations 
Conference Report directed that no funding for the Theater High 
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile program be used ``to accelerate 
THAAD pre-production or deployment unless the Secretary of Defense 
certifies to [Congress] that threats to our national security or 
military forces warrant otherwise.'' Is there funding in your fiscal 
year 2003 THAAD budget request for pre-production of extra missiles, 
radars, or other items not essential for the test program?
    Answer. There is $40 million in fiscal year 2003 associated with 
the THAAD element acquiring 10 additional test configuration missiles 
for the BMDS Test Bed. These test missiles will include telemetry/
safety instrumentation and were originally planned to be acquired later 
in the baseline program. Fiscal year 2003 funding is needed to meet a 
delivery schedule in fiscal year 2006 versus fiscal year 2008, as 
defined in the current baseline. There is no fiscal year 2003 funding 
non-missile components that are not essential to the currently planned 
Block 04 flight test program. (Note: the decision to acquire those 
additional assets would occur in fiscal year 2004).
    Question. General Kadish, your budget request includes the purchase 
of 10 additional THAAD missiles beyond the amount needed for the 
testing program. Why is the purchase of these missiles necessary?
    Answer. The 10 test-configuration missiles will support BMDS Test 
Bed risk reduction initiatives such as supplementing the minimal 
missile spares for early qualification testing, additional controlled 
flight tests, and earlier availability of production representative 
spares. Acquiring these missiles will give the program flexibility to 
build on successful flight tests or repeat flight tests in which 
anomalies occur.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
                          nuclear interceptors
    Question. According to recent press reports, the administration is 
investigating the option of using nuclear interceptors for mid-course 
missile defense. What would be the health effects of a nuclear 
explosion at likely intercept points?
    Answer. MDA is not designing, developing, or producing nuclear-
tipped interceptors.
    Question. What would be the radioactive fallout over what area?
    Answer. Since no part of MDA's program involves nuclear 
interceptors, I cannot answer this question.
    Question. What would be the effects on the ground and on satellites 
of an electromagnetic pulse, the blast, and other phenomena due to the 
explosion?
    Answer. Since no part of MDA's program involves nuclear 
interceptors, I cannot answer this question.
    Question. Could a nuclear missile defense system allow a nation 
with ICBM's to cause a nuclear explosion without using a nuclear 
warhead of their own?
    Answer. Yes, a non-nuclear threat intercepted by a nuclear-tipped 
interceptor would likely result in a high-altitude nuclear detonation. 
However, no part of MDA's program involves nuclear interceptors.
    Question. Would a nuclear interceptor require development of a new 
nuclear weapon?
    Answer. No part of MDA's program involves nuclear-tipped 
interceptors.
    Question. How could a nuclear interceptor be tested?
    Answer. Since MDA's program does not involve nuclear interceptors, 
we have not explored testing of nuclear interceptors.
    Question. Would the tests violate the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? 
Would they violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?
    Answer. Unless the tests involved actual nuclear detonations, they 
would not violate either the Limited Test Ban Treaty or the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
                    fort greely and early capability
    Question. The administration has proposed building missile defense 
sites in Alaska not only for testing but also for a limited emergency 
defense capability by 2004. What types of interceptors do you plan to 
deploy at Fort Greely? Will those interceptors have been tested as part 
of the Integrated Flight Test program by 2004? Will operational testing 
for the interceptors have begun by 2004?
    Answer. The Boeing Company, the prime contractor for the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element, selected Orbital Sciences 
Corporation and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space as its 
subcontractors to develop candidate boosters for consideration in the 
BMDS Test Bed. Lockheed Martin will build and integrate an upgraded and 
modified version of the existing Boeing Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) 
boost vehicle design. Orbital will build and integrate a second source 
booster vehicle using existing or slightly modified versions of 
existing Orbital boost vehicles. MDA will test versions of the boosters 
in two non-intercept booster vehicle tests beginning in February 2003. 
MDA plans to test these vehicles against targets in IFT-14 and IFT-15, 
planned for 1Q and 2Q fiscal year 2004, respectively. No booster test 
launches are currently planned at Fort Greely.
    The Secretary of Defense's January 2, 2002 memorandum states that 
MDA is responsible for Developmental Test and Evaluation. When a 
decision is made to transition an element's block configuration to a 
Service for procurement and operation, an Operational Test Agent will 
be assigned, and Operational Test and Evaluation will be conducted at 
the end of the transition phase of acquisition.
    Question. Will X-band radar or SBIRS-Low be in place by 2004 that 
can track missile trajectories from North Korea to the United States?
    Answer. Neither an XBR nor SBIRS Low satellites will be in place by 
2004. MDA is refining the requirements for a test XBR at this time, and 
will begin environmental analysis of the proposal as soon as it is 
sufficiently defined. MDA plans to initiate development of the Test XBR 
in fiscal year 2003 and proposes that the Test XBR be interoperable 
with the Extended Test Range (ETR) Test Bed as soon as possible. Both 
the Test XBR and the ETR test bed are independently useful and would 
each help the development of missile defense. The first SBIRS Low 
satellites are planned to be launched in the 2006/2007 timeframe, 
providing limited coverage on such trajectories.
    Question. What reason will we have for any confidence that in 2004 
we could defend against even one missile with simple countermeasures?
    Answer. With treaty restrictions lifted, the opportunity exists to 
bring in additional sensors to enhance tracking, discrimination, and 
identification of reentry vehicles. Technology initiatives, like the 
``Critical Measurements Program,'' provide data to refine radar 
discrimination algorithms aiding identification of the reentry vehicle 
among debris and intentional countermeasures.
    Question. What is the budget for fiscal year 2003 and for future 
years for missile defense work at Fort Greely?
    Answer. Fort Greely Estimate: Fiscal year 2003--$209.453; fiscal 
year 2004--$136.725.
    Notes: 1. Fiscal year 2003-fiscal year 2004 funding is based on 
estimates in fiscal year 2003 Budget Estimate Submission (Feb 02) R-3 
Exhibits and 1391s. MDA had not definitized the contract with Boeing at 
the time of the fiscal year 2003 Budget Estimate Submission.
    2. As stated in the R-3 Exhibit: ``The funding specific breakouts 
within the Prime Contractor/Boeing section of the R-3 are an estimate. 
At the time of the fiscal year 2003 Budget Estimate Submission, the 
contract was not definitized for the restructured Ground-based 
Midcourse Defense capability-based acquisition strategy. In addition, 
even when definitized, the Prime Contractor has the responsibility to 
balance resources across the GMD program and allocate funding according 
to program progress. This may require the Prime Contractor to 
reallocate funding, which would change the components' estimates, 
provided in this R-3 document.''
    Question. Are there any legal restrictions against flight tests at 
Fort Greely? If so, please explain. Are you actively seeking the legal 
right to conduct flight test launches from Fort Greely?
    Answer. MDA will analyze any major federal action that may 
significantly affect the human environment pursuant to the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We will also comply with Department of 
Defense safety requirements. In addition, we will also comply with any 
applicable Alaskan statutes and regulations. At present, we are still 
determining the feasibility and value of conducting a limited number of 
Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) flight tests from Fort Greely. If we 
determine that such tests would be feasible and of value, we will 
initiate an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to NEPA. We 
will not make any decision on whether to conduct flight tests from Fort 
Greely until an EIS is completed and evaluated. Nevertheless, the GMD 
test facilities at Fort Greely will assist in the development of an 
effective GMD regardless of whether flight tests are ever conducted 
from Fort Greely.
    Question. I understand the January 2, 2002 memo outlining the 
creation of the Missile Defense Agency says it is a DOD priority to 
``use prototype tests assets to provide early capability.'' The memo 
also exempts missile defense from traditional testing requirements. 
Section 232(f) of the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization bill 
requires a plan for demonstrating each critical missile defense 
technology ``before that technology enters into operational service'' 
and requires the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to 
``monitor the development of [this] plan . . .'' Do you plan to 
demonstrate each critical technology before entering any early 
contingency capability into operational service, and will the testing 
be monitored by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation?
    Answer. As prototypes and test assets become available, they could 
provide early contingency capability. A decision to deploy test assets 
to provide early contingency capability would depend upon the success 
of testing as well as other factors. MDA will conduct development 
testing. This testing characterizes the technical capability and 
military utility of the technologies, technical integration and 
progress toward making recommendations for transition and procurement 
of a missile defense element or system.
    The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) will monitor 
testing. The Director, OT&E will annually review and report on the 
adequacy and sufficiency of the MDA test program during the preceding 
fiscal year. The Director, OT&E, is on the Missile Defense Support 
Group (MDSG) and will advise USD (AT&L) and the Director, MDA 
throughout the development and transition phases.
    Question. What restrictions are in place to ensure that the 
Pentagon does not continue spiral development of ``test assets'' 
indefinitely, avoiding the ``transition'' phase described in the 
January 2 memo and thus the requirement to produce Operational 
Requirements Documents?
    Answer. The missile defense program is subject to extensive, 
periodic departmental and congressional oversight. MDA will continue to 
provide detailed budget justification materials, an annual BMDS RDT&E 
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), reports to Congress, and recurring 
congressional briefings. In addition, MDA is subject to independent 
review from agencies such as GAO. The Department will also conduct 
detailed and frequent reviews of the program. It is not our intent to 
systematically develop operational assets from RDT&E. This does not 
mean that test assets could not be used in an emergency, nor does it 
mean that we would not develop the test infrastructure that could later 
be used as part of the operational infrastructure. Our program plans 
include transitioning militarily useful developed capability to the 
Services for production, which would be governed by an ORD. The 
Secretary specifically charged the Senior Executive Council (SEC), 
chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, to oversee MDA as it 
transitions programs to the Services for procurement. MDA reports to 
the SEC at least annually, and these reviews verify that MDA 
transitions effective capabilities to the Services for procurement and 
terminates systems that do not deliver the anticipated performance.
                       organization and oversight
    Question. What independent operational or developmental testing is 
now planned for missile defense technologies? When in the developmental 
process will the independent testing occur? Who will conduct it?
    Answer. When the Senior Executive Council (SEC) decides that a 
block configuration of an element of the BMDS is ready to enter the 
Transition phase, an Operational Test Agent will be designated. Focused 
operational testing will be conducted prior to the end of the 
transition phase.
    Question. Who will certify that a missile defense technology is 
ready for production?
    Answer. When an element of a BMDS block capability has adequately 
demonstrated sufficient technological maturity, MDA and JTAMDO will 
jointly assess its military utility. Upon a recommendation from the 
Director, MDA, that the BMDS or a BMDS element should be considered for 
transition to production, and after approval by the Senior Executive 
Council, USD(AT&L) will establish necessary product teams to support a 
production decision by the DAB. USD(AT&L), as the Defense Acquisition 
Executive, would sign any resulting Acquisition Decision Memorandum for 
an element's production.
    Question. Please explain in detail how a ``capability-based'' 
requirements process and a capability-based ORD would work. How would 
these requirements relate to actual and significant threats?
    Answer. In the classic CJCSI 3170 ORD generation process, the user 
lists desired system performance characteristics that are heavily based 
upon current estimates of the threat and assumptions about the state of 
technological maturity. Once written, the ORD then undergoes a lengthy 
validation, review and approval process. The ORD is rarely changed, and 
changes can take several years to implement. A key weakness of this 
approach is its heavy reliance upon very precise threat and technology 
estimates. While both the intelligence community and industry offer 
their ``best-guess'' at the time, projections in these two critical 
areas are noted for high rates of change due to their dynamic 
environments. The current system does not accommodate this change well. 
ORD-based acquisition is well designed for procurements involving well-
known technologies, proven systems, sizable production runs, 
established operational experience, and single-Service acquisition. 
None of that yet exists for missile defense. For example, a weakness is 
that classic ORDs tend to be single element (e.g., satellite, aircraft, 
ship, missile, or weapon) focused. This can downplay recognition that 
an element might be a component of an overall larger system with 
mutually supporting elements, and result in artificially high 
performance thresholds being set. In the ``capability-based'' 
requirements process the user, tester, and developer work together, 
rather than sequentially, to develop the right balance between what is 
needed and what is possible. Once a military useful capability has been 
demonstrated and validated, it is captured in a capability-based ORD 
that then guides procurement and production. The capability-based ORD 
is simply a specialized version of the existing CJCSI 3701.1B formatted 
document. In lieu of system performance estimates however, operational 
performance characterizations are used. In keeping with the capability-
based approach, the threat is described in terms of technological 
capability, rather than addressing threat systems of specific 
adversaries. This will prevent designing missile defenses to ``point 
solutions'' that could prove not to match actual threats. Other facets 
of the standard ORD that speak to the suitability and supportability of 
the system remain unchanged. Further, as the system element transitions 
to a Service, the capability-based ORD will be brought through the 
traditional Joint Requirements Oversight Council process.
    The capability-based approach defers commitment to procurement 
until a capability is actually demonstrated. It allows trade-offs to be 
made during development, and it can adjust to changes in the threat and 
to advances in technology during the period of development. It 
accelerates the process to field a BMD capability by deferring areas 
that can be improved over time to later builds. Moreover, by 
recognizing elements are part of an overarching BMDS, it expands the 
capability trade space across the entire system. The result provides 
sufficient flexibility to balance effectiveness against cost, and gives 
greater overall responsiveness to address changes in the threat as they 
occur.
    Question. Both the Pentagon and the Congress have been well served 
by the independent assessments of the panels headed by Gen. Larry 
Welch. Will the MDA continue to get unclassified assessments from the 
Welch panel and/or from similar panels?
    Answer. The MDA leadership values General Welch's insight and 
objectivity. We are currently making use of his expertise and advice by 
including him on our Red, White and Blue countermeasures/counter-
countermeasures evaluation process. We plan to continue to do so in the 
future.
    The newly-formed Missile Defense Support Group and Working Group, 
as well as others such as the Defense Science Board, RAND Corporation, 
National Academies of Science and Engineering, and JASONs will serve as 
independent assessment panels for MDA.
    Question. If so, will those assessments, or unclassified versions 
of classified assessments, be made public, as they sometimes were in 
the past?
    Answer. To the extent possible, consistent with security 
considerations, we intend to make the results of these assessments (or 
an unclassified version of them) public on a case-by-case basis.
    Question. What is the current status and funding of the Red, Blue, 
and White teams created to increase the robustness of the 
countermeasures element of the missile defense testing program, and how 
are they being integrated into the MDA's missile defense development 
program?
    Answer. Fiscal year 2002 funding for the Countermeasures/Counter-
countermeasures (CM/CCM) program is $18.62 million. Funding for fiscal 
year 2003 is $30 million. The CM/CCM program now features two separate 
adversary teams, Red and Black, to identify potential countermeasures. 
The Red Team, limited to open source information on the Ballistic 
Missile Defense System (BMDS), provides an ``outsider's'' view of the 
BMDS and its potential susceptibilities. The Black Team, with full 
access to all technical information on the BMDS, provides an 
``insider'' aspect. The White Team approved the first adversary 
countermeasure on January 31, 2002. The Blue Team is currently 
assessing the performance of the BMDS against this countermeasure and 
developing potential solutions to mitigate risks.
    The CM/CCM program transitions Blue Team solutions with significant 
potential to improve the performance of the BMDS against 
countermeasures to a development and test program to demonstrate 
capability improvements. Solutions that successfully demonstrate the 
potential to improve our capabilities against countermeasures may then 
be programmed for integration into BMDS block upgrades.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                            nuclear warheads
    Question. Recent media reports indicate we may be once again 
considering the use of nuclear-tipped warheads as part of a national 
missile defense system. Many feel this new initiative indicates there 
are problems with the ``hit to kill'' approach (no dedicated warhead, 
rather a kinetic impact). Additionally, a nuclear detonation at any of 
the three flight trajectories (boost, mid-course or terminal) will have 
grave consequences in terms of EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) 
interference with satellites, as well as nuclear fall-out over 
populated areas. Given the negative strategic, political and health 
ramifications of such a proposal, should we be considering it as an 
option?
    Answer. MDA is not designing, developing, or producing nuclear-
tipped interceptors. In fact, one of the benefits of a layered missile 
defense system is the potential to intercept ballistic missiles in the 
boost phase, so that the scenario described could be avoided 
altogether. Matters related to your question are under the cognizance 
of DTRA.
                                 costs
    Question. The 2003 defense budget request contains a significant 
amount of money for missile defense. Given the high costs that have 
already been projected for strictly RDT&E (Research, Development, 
Testing and Evaluation), can you assure us the program will stay on 
budget? For example, critics claim the cost estimate of Airborne Laser 
(ABL) testing, a subset of missile defense, is projected to increase 
from $10 billion to $23 billion.
    (Source--Phil Coyle, former DOD head of testing and evaluation).
    Answer. We are doing everything we can to make sure that our 
program activities are executed the way we plan them. However, there 
are a number of uncertainties in the missile defense technology 
development area, especially in the area of airborne laser development. 
This is a revolutionary, unprecedented development activity involving 
cutting-edge technologies. Precise estimates of costs and schedule 
projections for this type of development activity are not realistic.
    MDA is committed to manage as best it can to ensure the development 
of an Airborne Laser capability in a fiscally responsible manner. 
Currently, costs are under control.
                                 tests
    Question. General Kadish, in prior statements you indicated you 
would conduct monthly testing in order to either prove or disprove the 
technologies required for a missile defense system. While the rate of 
testing appears to have increased, the quality of the tests continues 
to be a source of contention. Can you confirm that we have in fact 
embarked on an aggressive testing schedule that will adequately address 
the real world intercept and decoy scenarios a missile defense system 
may face? At our current rate of testing and development, when do you 
think we will have the technological maturity to fully field an 
effective missile defense system?
    Answer. I can confirm that we are on an aggressive testing 
schedule. As an illustration, in the last 10 months we conducted 14 
flight tests. In the next 5 months, we plan to conduct 12 more flight 
tests. Our aggressive test philosophy is based on adding complexity 
such as countermeasures in a step-by-step fashion over time. This 
approach allows us to make timely assessments of the most critical 
design risk areas. It is a walk-before-you-run, learn-as-you-go 
development approach with testing in more realistic operational 
scenarios occurring later in the test cycle. Testing activities are 
stepping up the pace and provide critical information that reduces 
developmental risk and improves our confidence that a capability under 
development is progressing as intended. While our tests show 
increasingly capable systems, the timeline to deploying parts or all of 
the BMD System is dependent upon the needs of the nation. As prototypes 
and test assets become available, they could provide early capability. 
As in all defense systems, the military utility of a proven capability 
will be a major factor in deciding whether and when it is deployed. Our 
concept calls for the Secretary, with input from the Senior Executive 
Council, and based on recommendation by the Director, MDA, and the 
Military Services, to decide whether to use RDT&E assets for a 
contingency or emergency deployment. For other than an contingency or 
emergency deployment (i.e., to transition an element to procurement and 
operations), the Director, MDA, would recommend that the element should 
be considered for transition, and after approval by the Senior 
Executive Council, USD(AT&L) would establish necessary product teams to 
support a production decision by the DAB. USD(AT&L), as the Defense 
Acquisition Executive, would sign any resulting Acquisition Decision 
Memorandum for an element's production.
                        general/budget oversight
    Question. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld announced in January a re-
organization of our missile defense efforts, creating the Missile 
Defense Agency, which you head. The current fiscal year 2002 Defense 
Authorization bill included several new reporting requirements that 
were applied to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and various 
organizations, such as the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation 
(DOT&E), that have some oversight or review responsibilities for our 
missile defense program. When do you expect to finish the report to 
Congress on cost, schedule, testing and performance goals for ballistic 
missile defense programs required under Section 232 of the fiscal year 
2002 defense bill, which was due on February 1 of this year?
    Answer. We believe we have satisfied that requirement with the 
details provided in our annual budget submission, delivered to Congress 
earlier this year. The fiscal year 2003 budget estimate provides 
information on long-term program goals. Specifically, the estimate 
provides funding requirements for the next six years, by year. It also 
provides schedule, including hardware and software deliveries, to the 
extent known, and planned decision points and test events for all 
program activities at least through completion of the planned testing 
and evaluation of the prototype.
                         test bed/x-band radar
    Question. In earlier years, we were told that the X-band radar on 
Shemya Island was critical to the effectiveness of the national missile 
defense. Now your R-2 documents show that you plan ``initial 
development of a Test X-Band Radar (XBR),'' but it is unclear if that 
will be at Shemya Island or not. Where will the Test XBR be located? If 
it is not at Shemya Island, how will this affect the ``contingency 
capability'' you plan to deploy at Fort Greely? And is it not correct 
that, even with an upgraded COBRA DANE radar on Shemya Island, the 
``contingency capability'' will be severely limited in its 
discrimination capabilities?
    Answer. The revised GMD program concentrates on development of the 
initial GMD parts of the BMDS Test Bed by the end of fiscal year 2004 
rather than on deployment of a specific system. As we examine the 
overall BMDS and potential architectures for the expanded RDT&E 
program, MDA has not determined the optimal location for an XBR. It 
would be premature to commit to any specific site as part of the BMDS 
Test Bed if it were not going to be part of an operational system. As 
such, the decision on the XBR at Shemya can be postponed.
    The critical functions to be performed by an XBR are to detect, 
acquire, track, and discriminate. Other radars and surrogates will be 
included in the Test Bed--such as the COBRA DANE, the Navy's AEGIS, the 
XBR-P at RTS, and the FPQ-14 Radar in Hawaii--and contribute to the 
performance of these functions to a greater or lesser degree. 
Discrimination is the function done most effectively by the XBR, but 
even this function can be performed in part by the EKVs on-board 
sensors and computer. Even in a system that includes an XBR, the final 
discrimination and target selection will be performed by the EKV. Any 
contingency capability will provide a militarily useful capability that 
we do not now possess against the threat expected at that time.
                         oversight and test bed
    Question. All of this work to construct the test bed is being done 
under RDT&E, rather than under Military Construction. You are, you say, 
now using a ``spiral development'' process, where you will use block 
upgrades to gradually improve existing capabilities. Also, following 
Secretary Rumsfeld's January announcement, you are exempt from several 
oversight requirements, such as producing Operational Requirements 
Documents, or ORDs, until you enter the transition phase after a 
decision has been made to procure the system. Given the ``Block'' 
nature of your approach, and your intent to have the capability to 
field other test systems beyond the interceptors at Fort Greely with 
``contingency capabilities,'' at what point in the process does the 
``Block'' upgrades shift from RDT&E to Military Construction budgets, 
from exemption from ORDs to requirements for them? Is there anything to 
stop you from, under the RDT&E budget and spiral development, adding 
five more ``test'' interceptors every two years, until you have fielded 
20 or 40 or 100 interceptors, without ever entering the transition 
phase, without ever using Military Construction funds, and without ever 
being required to produce an ORD?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2002 Authorization Act authorized the 
Missile Defense Agency to use RDT&E funds for construction projects to 
establish and operate the Missile Defense System Test Bed. The 
authority was capped at $500 million. This cap would not allow the 
Missile Defense Agency to periodically add RDT&E funded ``test'' 
interceptors or other testing infrastructure without Congressional 
action to extend the authority to use RDT&E funds for construction of a 
multi-element Ballistic Missile Defense System Test Bed. The missile 
defense program is subject to extensive, periodic departmental and 
congressional oversight. We will continue to provide detailed budget 
justification materials, an annual BMDS RDT&E Selected Acquisition 
Report (SAR), reports to Congress, and recurring congressional 
briefings. In addition, we are subject to independent review from 
agencies such as GAO. The Department will also conduct detailed and 
frequent reviews of the program. While test assets could be used in an 
emergency, our program plans include transitioning militarily useful 
developed capability to production, which would be governed by an ORD.
    Furthermore, while the Test Bed could provide a limited contingency 
capability, it could not meet the requirements for missile defense as 
envisioned by the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. Formal 
procurement and operation require a capability-based ORD. The ORD will 
be developed in the transition phase and be based on capability 
definitions determined in coordination with the Services. The 
capability-based ORD will be brought through the traditional Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) process prior to the Procurement 
and Operations phase.
                            midcourse budget
    Question. Although it is somewhat difficult to track because of the 
switch away from individual system budgets to more broad Terminal, 
Midcourse, and Boost phase budgets, it seems that after a very large 
increase in the budget in fiscal year 2002 for the Midcourse Defense 
Segment, that budget is now being reduced fairly dramatically, from 
$3.76 billion to $3.19 billion. What is the reason for such a drop in 
funding? Are you having trouble actually spending all of the 
substantial increases in funding that you got this year? That overall 
budget, however, also shows an enormous increase by 2005 in the budget 
for the Sea-based Midcourse Defense, from $426 million in fiscal year 
2003 to $742 million on 2005. What is the justification for that 
increase?
    Answer. MDA has requested funding necessary to carry out the 
described tasks in both fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. The 
higher spending in fiscal year 2002 is due in part to the ramp up of 
the BMDS Test Bed development and construction. MDA is not having 
trouble spending the funding that was authorized and appropriated. In 
fact, we expect to obligate over 90 percent of these funds by the end 
of fiscal year 2002. The increase in funding for the Sea-based 
Midcourse Defense (SMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System 
between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2005 can be attributed to the 
fact that SMD Block 2008/2010 will be engaged in concept definition 
work in fiscal year 2003/2004, with the actual engineering of the SMD 
Block 2008/2010 beginning in earnest in fiscal year 2005. This is in 
addition to the ongoing development of the Aegis LEAP Intercept 2004 
Test Bed.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                             airborne laser
    Question. General, it has come to my attention that since MDA took 
over the ABL program from the Air Force, testing for knocking down an 
in-flight ballistic missile has been pushed back by one year to 2004.
    Would you please comment on what lead to this schedule change in 
ABL testing, and would you outline what the modified testing program 
will look like?
    Answer. The ABL program was restructured to meet MDA's management 
strategy of lower risk and higher schedule confidence for all Ballistic 
Missile Defense System (BMDS) elements. The schedule for the original 
ABL acquisition strategy focused on one test aircraft, the PDRR 
aircraft, now called Block 2004 ABL. The strategy was to immediately 
transition to an Engineering and Manufacturing Development aircraft 
followed by a production decision. This was an aggressive schedule, 
relying upon the ability to make a production decision with only a 
limited amount of actual flight test data from one aircraft. The 
strategy also called for rapid prototyping to enhance capability 
between the PDRR and the EMD/production representative systems.
    The new MDA ABL strategy seeks more actual flight test data and 
technology maturity through the development of a more advanced 
prototype. This spiral strategy will reduce concurrency, provide 
increased duration for testing, and extend manufacturing durations for 
unique high energy laser and optical components.
    Question. Also, it is my understanding that MDA plans to apply the 
principles of spiral development to ABL. Could you give us a sense of 
how this will impact the overall schedule of the program, and how will 
it help get ABL into operation sooner?
    Answer. Spiral development is an iterative process where the user, 
tester, and developer continually interact, providing ongoing feedback 
to help develop the best capability within a block increment. This 
process facilitates more timely capability trades and reduces decision 
cycle time. This process can accelerate ABL to operational status 
sooner than the previously used requirements-based approach since the 
warfighter can accept the system at a given point during development, 
once a militarily useful capability has been demonstrated, rather than 
forcing the expenditure of extra time and funds to reach inflexible, 
predetermined requirements.
    Question. Two final questions on ABL--first, are you proceeding 
with lethality tests at Kirtland Air Force base? Secondly, could you 
tell me about the changes MDA has proposed to the ABL Environmental 
Impact Statement? I understand that MDA held public hearings on this 
issue just this week in Albuquerque and I am curious to know if you 
received any feedback on those hearings.
    Answer. Yes, we are proceeding with lethality tests at Kirtland Air 
Force Base as planned.
    MDA is preparing a supplement to the 1997 Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS) to cover specific proposed test activities and 
locations identified since the FEIS. These activities include ground 
tests of the tracking and beacon illuminator lasers, and the surrogate 
high energy laser over a 12-15 km distance at Edwards AFB. They also 
include flight tests of the lasers using airborne target boards at 
White Sands Missile Range.
    In general, there was little public concern raised at the public 
scoping meetings held as part of the Supplemental EIS environmental 
review process. A total of four public scoping meetings were held: two 
in California (Lancaster, CA on April 1, and Lompoc, CA on April 3) and 
two in New Mexico (Albuquerque on April 15 and Las Cruces on April 17). 
No one provided comments for the record at the public meetings in New 
Mexico. Five people provided comments at the California meetings. Two 
spoke in favor of the proposed action, and three people indicated 
concerns about potential impacts.
                              wsmr testing
    Question. As you know General, White Sands Missile Range hosts 
testing for both the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the 
Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3). Could you talk about what you 
have learned from the data you collected following the PAC-3 testing in 
February? I understand that it missed its cruise missile target, have 
you determined why? Is this a serious setback for your plans to proceed 
with full-rate production of PAC-3?
    Answer. The mission conducted in February was a partial success, as 
the majority of objectives were met or partially met. The principal 
focus of the test was to assess PAC-3 performance in a simultaneous 
engagement against multiple air-breathing threats. The most stressing 
of the three engagements was the successful intercept with a PAC-2 
missile of an attacking aircraft employing a weave maneuver and 
electronic countermeasures. Another PAC-2 engaged, but failed to 
intercept the subscale airbreathing threat (ABT) due to a radar 
transmitter fault just prior to warhead fuzing. The fault interrupted 
the terminal guidance processing, and prevented uplinking the fuze-
enable command to the interceptor. The system went into auto-recovery 
(within one second) in time to support the successful PAC-2 engagement 
of the aircraft. The PAC-3 engaged, but failed to intercept the cruise 
missile, due to the Fire Solution Computer incorrectly calculating the 
Predicted Intercept Point. This led to inaccurate missile cueing. We 
have determined that the missile performed nominally, however without 
an accurate cue the target remained outside the field of view of the 
missile seeker. The Army Lower Tier Project Office and the prime 
contractors have reviewed the OT-3 data and have charted a course for 
both near-term and long-term improvements to the PAC-3 Missile Software 
and Ground System Software. Operational testing of PAC-3 is continuing 
and we remain on track to conduct a production decision review of the 
PAC-3 element this fall.
    Question. With respect to THAAD, when will you resume testing and 
what factors will determine this? Is full-rate production still on 
target for 2008?
    Answer. THAAD Flight Testing will resume at WSMR in the 4th quarter 
of fiscal year 2004. Prior to flight testing, THAAD is undergoing 
rigorous ground testing over the next two years to ensure the highest 
probability of success in developmental and operational flight testing 
with production representative missiles and radars. To vastly improve 
quality, reliability, and producibility, every component of the THAAD 
missile, radar, BM/C2 and launcher was redesigned over the past two 
years, and will culminate in a Critical Design Review in early fiscal 
year 2004. Additionally, engineering level testing (wind tunnel, shock, 
vibration, thermal, and other environmental and hardware-in-the-loop 
testing) is occurring over the next two years to verify designs as they 
are being completed. I am confident that should the Department decide 
to field THAAD in its current configuration as part of our BMDS block 
construct, we will be able to enter the production phase by 2008, if 
not earlier.
                                 ______
                                 
           Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
                                  sbir
    Question. On January 29, 2002, Senator Kerry and I sent a letter to 
Secretary Rumsfeld concerning a provision in the Fiscal Year 2002 
Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3338/Public Law 107-117) that exempted 
the Department of Defense's ballistic missile defense programs from 
full participation in the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) 
Program. On March 1, 2002, I received an interim response. I have yet 
to receive a final response from the Department. When will this 
response be forthcoming and does the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 
intend to honor its full contribution to the SBIR program in lieu of 
the exemption contained in Public Law 107-117?
    Answer. The OSD Comptroller's Office has advised us that the final 
reply, dated April 17, 2002, has been forwarded to you and Senator 
Kerry. MDA intends to fully participate in the SBIR program in fiscal 
year 2002 and the Department's response reflects this commitment.
    Question. As the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process is 
underway, will MDA assure that the agency will not seek any reduction, 
legislatively or otherwise, in its SBIR obligations for fiscal year 
2003? Will MDA also notify me immediately if MDA becomes aware of any 
proposed or pending legislative provision that would limit MDA's SBIR 
obligation for fiscal year 2003?
    Answer. MDA is not seeking any reduction to its SBIR requirement 
for fiscal year 2003. However, the OSD Comptroller has initiated a 
legislative proposal to clarify the fiscal year 2002 language, should a 
similar provision appear in the fiscal year 2003 legislation, to ensure 
that any SBIR limitation for MDA can only be interpreted as a floor, 
not a cap, thus leaving fully available the flexibility for the 
Department to increase the MDA's SBIR participation to the full amount 
required by the SBIR Act.
    Question. At the National Defense Industrial Association in April 
2001, Mr. Richard Sokol of MDA made a speech on your behalf citing 
successes that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (the 
predecessor to MDA) has had with the SBIR and the Small Business Tech 
Transer (STTR) Program. What is MDA doing to strengthen these programs 
and how is MDA assisting the development and commercialization of 
technologies and products developed through these programs?
    Answer. MDA considers the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) 
Program a valuable resource. MDA considers SBIR a significant 
opportunity to reach out to the Small Business Community for products 
that will support our mission, and supports the dual-use nature of the 
SBIR as being advantageous to MDA and the nation. The MDA program 
roadmap will be employed to identify the opportunities where SBIR can 
be made a partner. To strengthen the program, an MDA SBIR Steering 
Group, under the direction of Rear Admiral Paige, has been empowered to 
lead this process, while an MDA SBIR Working Group has been established 
to provide coordination for SBIR topics, evaluations, and execution. 
MDA conducts an extensive outreach program, participating in 
conferences and trade shows around the country to specifically 
encourage Small Business participation in the MDA SBIR Program.
                                 ______
                                 
          Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
                          airborne laser (abl)
    Question. General, the President's budget submission reflects a 
restructuring of the ABL program. Are you confident that the Boeing-led 
contractor team will be able to follow this more realistic plan?
    Answer. MDA conducted an extensive program assessment for the ABL 
element and restructured the program to reduce risk and increase 
schedule confidence. We are confident that the current schedule can be 
maintained, provided no unforeseen technical challenges arise. We will 
continue to evaluate the program to ensure satisfactory progress.
    Question. ABL appears to be a system that holds great promise for 
destroying missiles in the boost phase. With its impending entry into 
service--and realizing that some facilities will have to be constructed 
to adequately house this new system--when will the site selection be 
made for the ``bed down'' location for this system and when will the 
criteria for this selection be identified?
    Answer. I deferred this question to the Air Force, as they are the 
responsible agency. They have provided the following information. 
Determining the criteria for selection of the ABL ``bed down'' location 
is an ongoing process and the responsibility of the Air Force's gaining 
command, Air Combat Command. The process will optimize aircraft, 
mission, and operations requirements to identify usually 2 to 3 
potential locations. This process is underway for ABL but not complete. 
The notional timeline for ``bedding down'' the ABL contains several 
significant events: conducting a site survey of candidate locations-
approximately 1 year, completing environmental requirements such as an 
impact statement--approximately 2 years, and constructing facilities--
approximately 2-3 years. Site selection will come after the completion 
of the environmental impact statement process. However, the timing of 
events is determined by working back from the ``bed down'' date. The 
attached chart was provided by Air Force.


                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Inouye. General Kadish, on behalf of the committee, 
I thank you very much for your testimony this morning.
    This subcommittee will stand in recess until April 24, 
2002, when we will receive testimony regarding the Department's 
Guard and Reserve programs.
    So thank you very much, General.
    General Kadish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Whereupon, at 11:41 p.m., Wednesday, April 17, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, 
April 24.]


       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2002

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:12 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Inouye, Dorgan, Kohl, Stevens, Cochran, 
and Domenici.

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                         National Guard Bureau

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RUSSELL C. DAVIS, 
            USAFR-NG, CHIEF
ACCOMPANIED BY:
        LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROGER C. SCHULTZ, USAR-NG, DIRECTOR, ARMY 
            NATIONAL GUARD
        BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID BRUBAKER, USAFR-NG, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 
            AIR NATIONAL GUARD

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

    Senator Inouye. Ladies and gentlemen, first, my apologies 
for being late. As you know, I am very, very seldom late, but 
we did have an emergency.
    Today the subcommittee will receive testimony from General 
Davis, General Schultz, and General Brubaker of the National 
Guard. They will be followed by a panel from the Reserves 
consisting of Admiral Totushek, General McCarthy, General 
Sherrard, and General Plewes.
    Gentlemen, our active component commanders are fond of 
stating that the country cannot go to war without the 
contributions of the Guard and Reserve. We have seen the 
evidence since September 11th. Guard and Reserve forces have 
fulfilled missions that have grown somewhat familiar over the 
last 10 years. The contributions of the Guard and Reserve 
forces in the area of airlift, aerial refueling, civil affairs, 
security forces and medical support reflect the design of our 
military force structure.
    Perhaps less typical since September 11th is the 
mobilization of the Guard and Reserve forces to conduct 
antiterrorism, force protection and other missions to augment 
or replace active units that are currently deployed. This 
aspect of mobilization reflects preparations for the 
continuance and perhaps expansion of the global war on 
terrorism.
    The Department of Defense is currently weighing how best to 
draw down Guard and Reserve mobilization to a level of 80,000 
personnel from the authorized level of 101,000 and still 
sustain the support necessary for active duty forces. This 
morning we look forward to hearing from our witnesses 
concerning the management of this draw-down, and the 
involvement of the Guard and Reserve in Operation Noble Eagle 
and Enduring Freedom.
    Also of concern to the committee are the longstanding 
issues of fielding of Guard and Reserve equipment and manpower 
funding. Today our witnesses will tell you how the fiscal year 
2003 budget meets those needs.
    I was prepared to call upon Senator Stevens at this point, 
but he is at a very important leadership meeting at this 
moment, but I will call on Senator Cochran.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

    Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am 
very pleased to join you in welcoming our distinguished panel 
of witnesses today, the Chiefs of the National Guard and 
Reserve Forces of the United States. We appreciate very much 
your dedicated service in support of our national security 
interests. We know that all of you have been participating in 
leading the mobilization of large number of forces, 81,000 I 
think is the current number, in support of deployments around 
the world where our forces are needed now to help protect the 
interests of the United States, and we appreciate your 
dedicated service and your leadership very much. We look 
forward to your testimony and talking with you about the budget 
request that has been submitted for continued support of our 
National Guard and Reserve forces.
    Senator Inouye. Well, shall we begin our hearing with 
General Davis.
    General Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 
Senator Cochran, distinguished members of the committee. It's a 
real pleasure for us to be back here today and an honor to talk 
to you about the National Guard.
    Today the National Guard is deployed all over the world, as 
you both alluded to in your statement, and it is very key that 
we understand where we can play and how we can play as 
guardsmen in support of our national security interests both at 
home as well as overseas. Being unique as the Guard is with 
both a Federal mission and a State mission, it has been a 
challenge since September 11, to say the least.
    We are very busy at the State level. The State active duty 
personnel are being involved in providing force protection and 
security. We are equally as aggressively involved with those 
same kinds of issues in our Federal status, out at Fort McNair. 
The augmentation to the soldiers at Fort McNair have been some 
of our national guardsmen, as they have been all over the 
country.
    Because we are deployed in multiple statuses, it's 
sometimes confusing to people about how the Guard operates, but 
with the outstanding leadership of the adjutants general and 
the Governors in the States, they make it work. At the same 
time, we are able to respond to national requirements and have 
soldiers deployed in northern Washington, southern Washington, 
in Kosovo as well as in Bosnia. As a matter of fact, we have 
had the second opportunity to have command of the Task Force 
Eagle in Tuslik.
    So as we deploy around the world, we want to make sure we 
are doing a number of things for our soldiers and airmen, and 
taking care of them is one of our top priorities, making sure 
they have the things that they need.
    Our priorities in the National Guard start with national 
security here at home, homeland security. That has been our 
mission since 1636 and we continue to do it today, defense of 
the homeland. We are very busy in that mission.
    During an earlier part of the year and last night I had the 
opportunity to be with Senator Stevens at an outstanding dinner 
that was held for Olympians. We had 4,000 people on the ground 
at Salt Lake City during the Olympics to assure that it came 
off without a glitch, and it did, in part because of what the 
Guard did, because they were just part of a major team and 
effort by the State, at the Federal level, and throughout the 
whole military establishment.
    So we are very aggressively involved in homeland security, 
combat air patrols which have been recently reduced, and the 
National Guard has been a large part of that, as well as other 
missions, securing facilities all over this country. So our 
number one mission is homeland security. We want to make sure 
we do that.
    Having said that, though, it is important that we have 
full-time manning of the Guard to ensure that we can take care 
of those men and women who are deployed. Increasing the folks 
deployed to 50,000, Army and Air guardsmen being involved, we 
need to take care of their families at home, we need to take 
care of their records, their pay records and all those things 
at home. We need the full-time manning to do that, to maintain 
the equipment so it is ready to deploy, to make sure that we 
have the right training preparation for our soldiers and 
airmen. Full-time manning remains one of our highest 
priorities.
    Next is modernization and recapitalization of equipment, 
and you talked to that, sir, in your comments, Mr. Chairman. 
You talked about making certain that we had equipment that's 
there, that's prepared to go, we have the right spares, and we 
have the right depots to support. We are replacing some of our 
older equipment with newer equipment, and it has to be 
compatible, consistent and interoperable with the active 
component equipment.
    And last but certainly not least, a major issue for us in 
quality of life is the facilities in which our young people 
work. We don't want them to come into facilities that they are 
not proud of, because that's where they spend much of their 
time during a drill weekend. They are able to accomplish their 
missions if we have the right kinds of facilities and equipment 
that goes in them to perform the mission. We need to secure at 
an even greater level weapons as an example, so we do that, and 
we work that pretty hard.
    So these are our top priorities, these four priorities, 
homeland security, full-time manning, modernization and 
recapitalization of equipment, and our quality of life issues 
in terms of our infrastructure and facilities.
    Thank you for the opportunity to come before your 
committee, and we have asked to join us today and it has been a 
little relief for us, but I did ask, if you don't mind, sir, I 
would like to introduce a couple of special guests we have with 
us today.
    Command Sergeant Major Frank Lever, who is the senior 
enlisted advisor for the Army National Guard, a South Carolina 
guardsman, and as soon as he opens his mouth, you will have a 
little sense of who he is and where he is from, an outstanding 
individual who is the Command Sergeant Major for the State of 
South Carolina National Guard.
    Senator Inouye. Welcome.
    General Davis. Command Chief Valerie Benton, who is our 
senior enlisted advisor of the Air National Guard. She came to 
us from the great State of Wisconsin where she had previously 
been on tour a number of years on active duty.
    The two of them have been out doing great work for the 
Guard, great work for our soldiers and airmen. They have been 
out to most of the airports throughout the country to look at 
the missions they are doing. They have gone out with the 
soldiers in other missions, with the airmen in other missions, 
as well as overseas. So we are really pleased to have them on 
board.
    It is very key for recruiting and retention, an issue we 
will talk to a little later on today, that we have these two 
folks as well as a large number of their peers at the State 
level talking to our soldiers and airmen. Many issues come up 
as a result of the high op tempo and the level of deployment 
that we have now, so it is very important for us to get the 
feedback on how those soldiers are doing and what kinds of 
issues they are involved in. Many family issues come up during 
that time, many spousal issues come up, so that has been a 
major issue for us, so we are glad to have them on board and we 
thank them for joining us here today.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I stand by to answer 
any questions you may have.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you, General Davis. Now may I call on 
General Schultz.
    General Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator 
Cochran, and members of this committee. We begin by saying 
thanks. Command Sergeant Major Frank Lever and I have the honor 
of serving as part of the leadership team for the Army National 
Guard. What sets us apart, Mr. Chairman, is our members, 
soldiers, we are 350,000, and their families.
    And today as we talk to you about a different pace across 
the Army Guard, our employers as well are part of this team 
serving our Nation. What's special about them all, they are 
volunteers.
    Today, Mr. Chairman, I am saying to you that the Army Guard 
will meet its end strength. Today we are over just a little bit 
in our prior service and our non-prior service enlistments, 
which is good news really. Our retention is higher than 
originally planned, which is good news really. But I want to 
note, I watch end strength very carefully and it's possible for 
us today in the Army Guard to overdrive our strength to the 
point that we wouldn't have enough money to pay for the 
membership. And so I very carefully watch how many soldiers we 
have in the States as we roll off the national figures, are 
members of the Army National Guard, so I will not overdrive the 
end strength. But I just want you to know, we will meet our end 
strength with quality soldiers from across this Nation.
    Now the Chief has already mentioned our priority for full-
time manning, and I want the members of this committee to know 
with your support last year, and as you consider what full-time 
manning means to the Army National Guard and our readiness, as 
you consider the number that would be distributed to States, 
last year's growth in military technicians and active Guard and 
Reserve members went to the States and territories, and the 
District of Columbia. We kept none of those members on Title X 
tours, they went to the field as they promised last year they 
would.
    Mr. Chairman, you know well the pace of activity in the 
Army today and the Guard today and we have tremendous depth in 
our organizations. We are not hurting in terms of the activity 
or tempo of things, but I want you to know, the pace is up a 
bit. Last year we trained in 89 countries.
    It has been my intent to scrub all the work load across all 
the States and territories so that everyone shares a part of 
the mission. And as we talk about training or deployment or 
missions, it's our sense that we have the capacity in this team 
properly managed, and properly scheduled, to satisfy the needs 
of our Nation.
    As we talk about the mobilization cap in the Army today, 
we're capped at 26,000 members in the Guard and Reserve. The 
Guard has just slightly over half of that 26,000. We are 
planning missions for more than that, as you are aware, so we 
have the potential to go beyond the 26,000, but today we're 
staying within the mobilization limits driven of course by 
circumstances that are beyond our reach inside the Army or the 
Guard.
    Mr. Chairman, some years ago you recall we talked about 
integration in the Army and some would argue today that unit 
integration has gone to a level that many never expected. As 
the 29th Division's Virginia-based headquarters comes back home 
from Bosnia, members of the 155, Senator Cochran being from 
Mississippi, they were also a part of that rotation, with 
outstanding duty to the person, and the employers and their 
families supported that rotation.
    I have not had one complaint from an employer so far in our 
rotational schedule which is now increased, but we're alert to 
long-term implications of deployments that run 6 months, 12 
months and perhaps even beyond, very sensitive to that. And I 
just say that as long as we plan years in advance, tell the 
employers, tell the families, tell our members what's expected, 
it's my anticipation that we will be able to maintain the 
strength across the Army Guard and maintain mission capacity as 
well.
    As I talk with you about mobilization since September 11, I 
just want to reinforce one point, and that is integration in 
our Army is really important. That means equipment must be 
compatible, for example aircraft, trucks, and communications 
systems. On very short notice our members are called to active 
duty these days, and so the point you raised at the opening is 
something that resounds across our formation to be sure.
    Mr. Chairman, the Guard and Reserve appropriations, this 
committee has helped us with that requirement in the past and I 
want you all to know that as we talk about the support of your 
committee, those items of equipment go to the field, they go to 
the units and they change the readiness of our units. Last 
year, for example, we bought trailers for trucks, we had the 
authorization through the normal process budget activity to buy 
the tractors, so we took the appropriation from this committee 
and applied it to the trailers, which is really the complete 
system when you think about total requirement.
    My final point, Mr. Chairman, there is a story that the 
Army Guard is reluctant to change and I just want to say, we 
are converting today from combat arms duty, 21,900 soldiers, to 
new duties, to support related jobs. And we can take all of 
those kinds of new skills and apply them to homeland security 
missions and we could also deploy them around the world as the 
Army requires.
    Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our soldiers, I say thanks.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, General Schultz. 
General Brubaker.
    General Brubaker. Mr. Chairman and members of the 
committee, on behalf of the 108,000 citizen airmen of the Air 
National Guard, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to be 
here today. Because of your past support the Air National Guard 
is trained and equipped to instantly respond to America's call 
to arms. For the past 7 months we have been engaged in 
continuous operations fighting side by side with our total 
force partners in a war on three fronts. The volunteer spirit 
of our Air National guardsmen and women guarantees we will 
continue to fight for as long as it takes.
    The first aircraft scrambled in the skies above our 
Nation's Capital on September 11th were Air National Guard F-
16s returning from a training mission. Within hours, 18 tanker 
wings were generated, 34 fighter units were ready, and 179 
missions were flown on the first day. As of today we have 
logged over 100,000 hours and over 30,000 sorties. In addition, 
thousands of combat support personnel across every major 
functional area have leaned forward to serve around the world 
and at home.
    The Air National Guard currently provides more than 25,000 
men and women to operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and 
the Aerospace Expeditionary Force. Today those members include 
over 6,000 volunteers, 17,000 mobilized men and women, a 
sustained 1,300 Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) 
participants as well as over 18,000 full-time technicians and 
11,000 Active Guard/Reserve Program (AGR) personnel who support 
our day-to-day operations. The Air National Guard makes this 
remarkable contribution to our Nation's defense in large part 
because of this committee's exceptional support, especially in 
providing funds for our National Guard and Reserve equipment 
account. This assistance is absolutely essential in order to 
provide us with the modern equipment and transformational 
capability that we seek, and quite frankly, our readiness 
levels depend on it.

                      LIGHTNING II TARGETING PODS

    Procurement of 24 additional Lightning II targeting pods 
remain our number one priority. This capability will greatly 
enhance our ability to support combat taskings. In addition, 
increased antiterrorism, force protection requirements are also 
necessary to reduce the threat to our units and satisfy Air 
Force taskings.

                                 KC-135

    When congressional authorization released up to 100 wide 
body tankers in the fiscal year 2002 budget, we now have the 
additional possibility of replacing our aging E models with 
both flow-down KC-135-Rs from the active duty fleet, as well as 
new tankers for selected Air National Guard units.

                                  C-17

    In regards to the C-17, we are progressing with the 
conversion at Jackson, Mississippi. We continue to work towards 
a fiscal year 2004 bed down, but manpower and some equipment 
shortages still remain significant. We support the Air Force's 
C-17 multiyear procurement which should enable more units to be 
assigned to the Air National Guard. In that same light, we 
believe that our Air National Guard fighter units are ideally 
suited to fly both the F-22 and joint strike fighter.
    Experience has shown that given the opportunity, the Air 
National Guard can do any mission. It is imperative that we be 
included up front in future unit equipped bed down plans in 
order for the total force to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

                            QUALITY OF LIFE

    Two of our quality of life priorities, family readiness and 
support and the child care alternatives pilot test program are 
not funded. We are placing untold pressures on the families of 
our Air National Guard members as they serve their country 
selflessly. Today nearly 50,000 Air National Guard member 
families are in immediate need of dedicated full-time family 
readiness and support services.

                           HOMELAND SECURITY

    On a final note, we are a capabilities based force that is 
ready to answer our Nation's call at home or anywhere around 
the world. As we continue to identify and redefine roles and 
missions in regard to homeland defense, we must remember that 
our homeland security capabilities derive from our warfighting 
capability. The Air National Guard is certainly prepared to 
play a significant role in this vitally important area but we 
must also be allowed to use our combat proven capabilities to 
continue to support other major wars and contingencies 
throughout the world.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    With your continued support, the Air National Guard will 
remain an indelible part of American military character as a 
powerful expeditionary force, domestic guardian and caring 
neighbor, protecting the United States of America at home and 
abroad.
    Thank you once again for all you do for the Air National 
Guard.
    [The statement follows:]
   Joint Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Russell C. Davis, 
   Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz, and Brigadier General David 
                                Brubaker
           national guard posture statement--fiscal year 2003
                 protecting america at home and abroad
                           executive summary
    ``America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on 
imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand.''--
--(President Harry S. Truman--January 8, 1947)
    The job of safeguarding our national security is fulfilled through 
the courage and determination of our diverse and capable Armed Forces. 
The National Guard, an integral component of our Armed Forces, is 
committed to supporting our national security strategy at home and 
abroad.
    Our goal in this year's Posture Statement is to highlight the 
unique and critical capabilities of the Army and Air National Guard. 
This Executive Summary is intended to give you a clear and concise 
overview of our top legislative priorities for fiscal year 2003. As we 
accomplish the business of the National Guard in 2002, you will see 
that our vision encompasses the future protection of this country. The 
attached compact disc provides as a more detailed reference tool for 
use throughout the year.
    I hope you will invest the time to read this summary. In return, we 
will illuminate the most important issues facing the men and women of 
your National Guard as they strive to meet the challenge of protecting 
America's interests at home and abroad.
Full-Time Manning
    The National Guard remains an organization of predominately part-
time citizen-soldiers and airmen. However, about 17.5 percent of our 
total Army and Air National Guard structure is manned full-time. This 
professional cadre of military technicians and full-time military 
personnel provides the core of experience and stability necessary to 
maintain our facilities and equipment, train our personnel, and 
administer the daily operations of our force.
    At one time, these personnel were sufficient to meet the demands of 
the National Guard's missions during the Cold War. Since the Gulf War, 
the Total Force Policy of our national military strategy has 
accelerated National Guard integration with the active component 
services in performing daily missions at an increasing pace. 
Correspondingly, the demands placed upon the National Guard have grown, 
stressing the ability of our full-time forces to support these 
missions. The additional capability required to fulfill our traditional 
role in Homeland Security further exacerbates the problem of keeping 
pace.
    Providing enough full-time personnel to maintain our operational 
momentum is our most pressing need in the evolving new threat 
environment. It is also the lynchpin to readiness. Our full-time cadre 
is the bridge to rapid surge capability and the transformation from 
peacetime to wartime posture. Army National Guard full-time support 
authorizations presently fulfill only 57 percent of the total validated 
requirement. This places at risk the National Guard's ability to 
provide adequate physical security, an initial response capability, and 
a community presence for an anti-terrorist/force protection capability.
Homeland Security
    America's history, heritage and community ties have always given 
the National Guard cause to execute our constitutional mission ``To 
provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, 
suppress insurrections, and repel invasions'' (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 
15). The unfolding events since September 11th have given new urgency 
to that enduring language.
    Our dual status as a state resource that can be accessed for 
federal roles makes the National Guard a cost-effective and uniquely 
flexible instrument of national defense. This is how we protect America 
at home and abroad. The military discipline, training and equipment 
provided by the United States Congress is used frequently in virtually 
every state and district to respond to civil emergencies. Responding to 
a Homeland Security incident is comparable in many ways to responding 
to any other disaster. It requires many of the same disciplined and 
trained personnel and command and control resources we already employ 
in our wartime role.
    Strengthening the security of the American homeland will be a joint 
operational endeavor requiring unprecedented integration between all 
appropriate state and federal, civil and military capabilities. The 
National Guard brings to this effort a unique level of experience and 
expertise in these areas. Its dual state-federal mission has provided 
it with an unmatched level of domestic civil-military operational 
experience. In addition, the National Guard Bureau's long-standing 
position as the nexus between state and federal military organizations 
makes it a natural base upon which to build the stronger federal-state 
integration that will be required for the future.
    As we prepare the nation for wartime, we must refine the National 
Guard's role with more clarity in respect to its relationship with the 
Department of Defense. The National Guard is best situated to 
coordinate the efforts of local, state, and federal agencies so as to 
provide the nation with the best possible disaster response 
capabilities.
Modernization/Recapitalization
    Our National Guard, like every modern military force, is dependent 
on state-of-the-art equipment. In the past, our equipment has been 
``cascaded'' down from the active component services as they 
modernized. Consequently, the National Guard typically operates and 
maintains the oldest equipment in an already aging fleet. The stability 
of our workforce gives us an edge when maintaining this aging 
equipment; however, no matter how skilled the mechanic, aging equipment 
and a lack of spare parts can and does result in lost readiness. It 
becomes less cost-effective to maintain equipment that has aged to the 
point where there is no longer any appreciable return on investment. 
For this reason, it is important to modernize and/or recapitalize our 
existing capability as the best option to ensure we remain 
interoperable with other U.S. Armed Forces.
    As we engage in integrated operations with our active component 
counterparts, interoperable equipment becomes even more critical. 
Because the Total Force is interdependent, our success in supporting 
the mission is complicated by the fact we often have disparate 
equipment. When the active component transforms to achieve more modern 
capabilities, it will be doubly hard for the National Guard to keep 
pace. As a result, we recommend the Total Force be viewed as a total 
transformational force in order to retain interoperability and to 
maintain full-spectrum capability.
    America can no longer afford to wait a generation for modern 
equipment to ``cascade'' down to the National Guard if it wants to 
maintain the Total Force as an integrated structure. When our military 
modernizes to improve its capabilities, we must include the National 
Guard as a full partner. When new threats create new technologies and 
new responses, integration demands inclusion of the National Guard.
Infrastructure/facilities
    Like people and equipment, infrastructure is critical to the 
readiness of the National Guard. Providing an efficient work 
environment is a key ``quality of life'' issue. Aging facilities and 
outdated utilities are a drain on resources, absorbing disproportionate 
maintenance costs and degrading the efficiency of the workplace.
    The National Guard has more than 3,000 facilities in 2,700 
communities in every state, territory and the District of Columbia. Our 
sites lack the extensive infrastructure (dormitories, hospitals, 
schools etc.) typical of active component posts and bases; they rely 
upon the community for this support. As a result, our facilities tend 
to be highly visible and are a shared community resource. 
Unfortunately, many of them are rated among the lowest in terms of 
quality and readiness status.
    To merely maintain them in their present condition is a significant 
challenge in the neighborhood of $350 million per year. To recapitalize 
and upgrade the readiness of all ARNG facilities would require a 341-
year cycle at present levels of support. The current Department of 
Defense standard for recapitalization is 67 years. At the 67-year rate, 
the ARNG requires approximately $1.5 billion from fiscal year 2003 to 
fiscal year 2007.
    New and urgent missions such as the Weapons of Mass Destruction/
Civil Support Teams levy additional requirements for new construction 
to counteract threats to Homeland Security. Nevertheless, the Advanced 
Division Redesign Study, the Interim Brigade Combat Team concept, and 
other organizational constructs are transitioning the National Guard 
from a Cold War force to the lighter leaner force the future requires 
with new correspondingly tailored facilities in which to train.
Summary
    We have sketched our top concerns as we continue to achieve our 
goal to ``Protect America at Home and Abroad.'' The goal itself is a 
reflection of our constitutional duty to provide for the ``common 
defense''. Our priorities mirror the means to execute that obligation. 
We hope that you will use the attached compact disc to view a much more 
detailed discussion of these priorities as they relate to the Army and 
Air National Guard respectively. You will also find a comprehensive 
description of the significant programs and mission-areas of the 
National Guard.

                                          Russell C. Davis,
          Lieutenant General, U.S. Air Force Chief, National Guard.
                           protecting america
    To ``provide for the common defense''--of the nation, the National 
Guard Bureau provides the leadership and resources required to set the 
standard for the world's premier reserve force, the National Guard of 
the United States. Our destiny is to respond to current and future 
worldwide commitments of the National Security Strategy with community-
based, dedicated citizen-soldiers and airmen; well trained, organized, 
and supported with state of the art technology and equipment.
    This vision provides the framework for the premier reserve force in 
the world. Providing for the ``common defense'' requires local, 
national, and global deployments of military personnel and equipment. 
When our national interests are threatened, the involvement of citizen-
soldiers and airmen ensures the full commitment of our nation.
    Following independence, the authors of the United States 
Constitution empowered Congress to ``provide for organizing, arming, 
and disciplining the militia.'' However, recognizing the militia's 
state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers 
and training of the militia to the states. Throughout the 19th century 
the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the 
bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the 
Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, important national 
defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard as a 
Reserve force for the United States Army. National Guard aviation 
units, some of them dating back to World War I, became the Air National 
Guard, the nation's newest Reserve Component in 1947.
    Our dual constitutional role means our duties do not end at the 
federal level but extend to the states as well. Under state law, the 
National Guard provides protection of life, property and preserves 
peace, order and public safety. These missions are accomplished through 
emergency relief support during natural disasters such as floods, 
earthquakes and forest fires; search and rescue operations; support to 
civil defense authorities; maintenance of vital public services, and 
counterdrug operations.
    Since the founding of the National Guard militias, we have embraced 
the fundamental and enduring goals of maintaining the sovereignty, 
political freedom, and independence of the United States, with its 
values, institutions, and territory intact; protecting the lives and 
personal safety of Americans, both at home and abroad; and promoting 
the well-being and prosperity of the nation and its people.
National Guard in our Communities
    We are first and foremost an institution of people-soldiers, 
airmen, civilians, families and employees. The National Guard is the 
military face of the nation representing a familiar presence in many 
communities throughout America. Our greatest strength emanates from the 
diversity of our force--diversity of education, political affiliations, 
vocations, social and economic status, race, color, creed and age. More 
Americans connect their vision of the military with the local National 
Guard that they see routinely, than any other service. Guardsmen and 
women are our neighbors, friends, co-workers and relatives. The 
professionalism, dedication and trust, of the nation in our military, 
starts with the local Army National Guard armory and the Air National 
Guard unit. People from all walks of life fill the ranks of the 
National Guard and, as such, provide a direct connection to more than 
2,700 local communities across the nation where Guard facilities are 
located. We share a common conviction and purpose built upon a bedrock 
set of values: integrity, loyalty, selflessness, compassion, family, 
dedication, service, and patriotism.
State and Federal Calls to Service
    This community connection brings a unique perspective to the 
culture of the National Guard making it the logical choice for national 
priorities like executing Homeland Security, countering Weapons of Mass 
Destruction (WMD), supporting counterdrug activities, and defending 
against cyber-terrorism. The Army and Air National Guard embrace their 
Constitutional dual-role as both a federal and state force. A role 
that, because of recent events, is increasing at all levels.
    National Guardsmen are under the command of the state governors 
unless the President specifically orders them into federal service. 
Whether they are serving in a state or federal status, members of the 
National Guard bring critical skills and resources to bear during both 
local and national emergencies. When a crisis occurs that overwhelms 
the capabilities of local authorities, the Army National Guard and Air 
National Guard respond to assist as needed. In fiscal year 2001, local 
governments requested emergency support 365 times to assist victims of 
disasters such as hurricanes, floods, fires, droughts, ice storms, 
tornadoes, and terrorist attacks. In response, the Army National Guard 
and Air National Guard provided 382,000 man-days in a State Active Duty 
status to reduce the suffering of affected civilian populations by 
providing requested and required support (e.g. security, power, heat, 
water, transportation, food, shelter and emergency engineering 
support).
    September 11, 2001 was a typical day for the National Guard. There 
were 12,400 National Guardsmen assigned in federal and state missions 
at home and abroad. Over 450 were in State Active Duty status fighting 
forest fires, protecting our communities from natural disasters, such 
as floods and storms, providing drinking water or electrical power, and 
other domestic missions. Nearly 12,000 soldiers and airmen were 
deployed in support of Commanders in Chief or Service requirements 
world-wide in a variety of combat and combat support missions, Bosnia/
Kosovo, Southern and Northern Watch in Southwest Asia, and the enduring 
air sovereignty mission of Air National Guard and 1st Air Force air 
defense units.
    Within minutes, Air National Guard fighter units were leveraging 
critical combat skills and equipment while performing combat air patrol 
missions, including Presidential aircraft escort, over the nation's 
skies. In New York, National Guard soldiers and airmen responded 
immediately. In all more than 3,000 National Guardsmen supported 
efforts at the World Trade Center site. Eighteen Air National Guard 
refueling wings, multiple strategic and tactical airlift units (C-5, C-
141 and C-130), along with Army National Guard aircraft, provided 
necessary lift support to the combat air patrols, consequence 
management activities and Enduring Freedom response requirements. 
National Guard units provided rescue support, civil engineers, 
communications and power generation capability, air traffic control, 
medical teams, chaplains and other service support operations, i.e., 
food and shelter service, public affairs and command and control 
entities.
    Since that tragic day, an additional 19,500 soldiers and airmen 
have been called-up to react to the emergencies resulting from the 
attacks and the continuing war against terrorism. Thousands of other 
National Guard members have also responded by volunteering each day for 
duty. The National Guard's unique Civil Support Teams have responded to 
more than 200 suspected chemical/biological incidents in which they put 
their cutting edge training and technology to precisely the use 
Congress envisioned. In addition, Active Component military 
installations were provided National Guard soldiers for additional 
force protection and critical asset protection.
    Finally, the National Guard responded to the President's request to 
provide airport security to more than 400 airports across the nation. 
Today, the National Guard is not only performing these missions, but 
also deploying combat and support units in operations to defeat 
terrorism around the world. Only two months after the attack on 
America, the National Guard deployed 5,209 personnel on State Active 
Duty and more than 40,000 soldiers and airmen worldwide. This has 
translated into a three-fold increase in our operational tempo since 
the September 11th attacks.
                         national guard bureau
    Under Title 10 of the United States Code, the National Guard Bureau 
is the channel of communications between the military departments and 
the National Guard throughout the 54 states and territories of the 
United States.
    The Chief, National Guard Bureau serves as the senior uniformed 
National Guard officer responsible for formulating, developing and 
coordinating all policies, programs and plans affecting more than half 
a million Army and Air National Guard personnel. Appointed by the 
President, the general serves as the principal adviser to the Secretary 
and Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Secretary and Chief of Staff of 
the Air Force on all National Guard issues.
    The National Guard Bureau leadership also works closely with the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Members of the National Guard serve full-time on 
the Joint Staff to facilitate coordination on substantive issues 
pertaining to the National Guard. The National Guard Bureau works in a 
collective manner throughout the Department of Defense to create a 
seamless Total Force.
    For the National Guard to function effectively, NGB maintains 
strong ties with all state and federal activities. Maintaining our 
basic freedoms and providing critical life saving support at all levels 
requires a National Guard that is trained, equipped and ready. It also 
requires the administration, coordination and leadership of a National 
Guard Bureau that is directly connected to all the people it serves.
    This diagram illustrates the interconnectedness and complexity of 
our organization. A complete listing of State Adjutants General can be 
found in the Appendix.
                     a legacy in homeland security
    The National Guard is proud of the legacy of Homeland Security 
handed down by past generations of Citizen Soldiers and Airmen. From 
the first militia in 1636, to the Air National Guard sitting runway 
alert in the 1950s, to the Army National Guard's Nike missile defense 
batteries during the Cold War, to the missions we serve today, Homeland 
Security continues to be part of the heart of your National Guard.
Defending our Home
    On September 11, 2001, thousands of Americans perished in the 
Pentagon, the World Trade Center and aboard four hijacked airlines.
    This act has brought home the realities of terrorism. This vicious 
attack has also brought to light a fundamental circumstance of our 
situation. That circumstance was best expressed by Secretary of Defense 
Donald H. Rumsfeld, ``We cannot and will not know precisely where and 
when America's interests will be threatened, when America will come 
under attack, or when Americans might die as the result of aggression. 
We can be clear about trends, but uncertain about events. We can 
identify threats, but cannot know when or where America or its friends 
will be attacked. We should try mightily to avoid surprise, but we must 
also learn to expect it. We must constantly strive to get better 
intelligence, but we must also remember that there will always be gaps 
in our intelligence. Adapting to surprise--adapting quickly and 
decisively--must therefore be a condition of planning.''
    The National Guard has time-honored experience responding 
effectively to surprises ranging from wildfires, flashfloods, and 
tornadoes to riots and other emergencies. This was well demonstrated on 
September 11. We moved quickly to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the 
civil responders, and remain a vital component of the recovery process. 
The machinery of accessibility is working just as it was designed, and 
the National Guard is able to promptly and flexibly meet the levy of 
both the President and the governors in responding to the needs of the 
nation and the individual states. Our dual status is proving to be a 
particularly useful feature of our organization, permitting National 
Guardsmen to be a federal military resource under Title 10 of the USC, 
or a state-controlled law-enforcement and consequence management tool 
under Title 32 of the USC or applicable state laws for State Active 
Duty. Consequently, there are a number of things that functioned 
smoothly as currently designed.
    Large numbers of military personnel and equipment were brought 
rapidly to bear on the mission. Even after the on-site civilian 
Incident Command structure was lost in the collapse of the World Trade 
Center, the New York National Guard was able to effectively receive and 
fill requests for support from the New York Fire Department ``second 
team'' once they were up and running.
    National Guard forces were employed across state lines. New Jersey 
National Guard readily joined in support of the recovery efforts.
    Due to the unique institution of the New York Naval Militia, the 
governor of New York was able to gain access to Navy and Marine Corps 
Reserve assets inside his state as they were needed. The governor was 
able to successfully integrate requested federal forces into the 
response. Although specific to New York, this concept may provide a 
model for integrating the participation of other Reserve Components 
into a governor's response in other states.
    We are proud to have been the ``bench'' for the brave firefighters, 
emergency medical technicians and law enforcement officials at the 
scene of the disasters. We provided medical personnel to care for the 
injured, military police to assist local law enforcement officials, key 
asset protection, transportation, communications, logistics, and a 
myriad of other support functions. We are making our resources 
available as needed, to restore order, stability, and safety to our 
fellow citizens.
    When required to do so, National Guard troops were brought rapidly 
into federal status. Maryland Army National Guard military police units 
were very quickly brought on duty and dispatched to provide security at 
the Pentagon within 24 hours of the attack. Air National Guard fighters 
were on the scene within minutes. Indeed, our immediate execution of 
the President's airport security mission, while remaining under the 
control of the state governors, demonstrated the special speed and 
flexibility of the National Guard even under Title 32.
    On September 27th, President Bush asked the governors to call up 
over 7,000 National Guardsmen to supplement security at the nation's 
420 commercial airports for up to six months. The first National 
Guardsmen were on duty the very next day. Their purpose is not only to 
stop terrorists but also to restore the faith and confidence of the 
public in commercial air travel until more permanent arrangements can 
be made. On November 9th, President Bush authorized an additional 25 
percent manning added for the holiday period until January 6, 2002. Our 
commercial airline industry is a key link in the national economy and 
vital to our nation's interests. The President has invited America to 
``Get on board, do your business around the country.''
    As of November 26, 2001, over 48,000 National Guardsmen from 54 
states, territories, including the District of Columbia and Puerto 
Rico, had been called to federal service in support of Operations 
``Noble Eagle'' and ``Enduring Freedom''. We are responding as we are 
designed--``dual-missioned.''
    We are ready and prepared to ``call out more of the National 
Guard'' to ensure that the business of this country can continue to 
function without fear or interruption. There are challenges facing the 
National Guard as it implements and evolves its Homeland Security role. 
None are insurmountable. The mission of the National Guard, like all 
other military organizations, is driven by the roles and capabilities 
needed to meet the threat; and the resources that must be allocated to 
sustain needed capabilities. With support, the National Guard will meet 
the challenge to be ready for all aspects of the important Homeland 
Security mission.
Preventive Defense
    Preventive Defense is one of the National Guard's federal roles 
that also contributes to homeland security. We are uniquely positioned 
to promote democratic practices abroad and find ourselves in frequent 
demand for overseas cooperative defense programs through the State 
Partnership Program.
            The State Partnership Program
    The purpose of the State Partnership program is to build long-
standing institutional affiliations and people-to-people relationships 
with nations currently establishing democratic military organizations. 
By using National Guardsmen in their dual roles as citizen-soldiers, 
the partner nations' military leaders encounter highly trained and 
cost-effective members of the United States Armed Forces. Guardsmen 
serve as role models in making a compelling case for ideals of 
democracy, professionalism, and deference to civilian authority. They 
also demonstrate the necessity and economy of Reserve Components with 
the ability to react immediately to civil and military emergencies.
    Much of the National Guard's success in promoting democracy abroad 
is the result of the State Partnership Program. To date, 32 states, two 
territories and the District of Columbia have joined as Partners or 
Associate Partners in extending the hand of friendship from grassroots 
America to 33 countries that would emulate our ways and institutions. 
Foreign military personnel and political leaders visit our country to 
observe how the National Guard operates within the state and federal 
framework. National Guard members reciprocate by visiting the partner 
country and providing detailed information on civil-military topics 
like search and rescue, medical support, disaster response, military 
law, and family programs. Importantly, these are more than just 
military-to military contacts. By involving governors, mayors and their 
staffs, state legislators, and the families and friends of our National 
Guard members in building these bridges of friendship, we promote 
political ``buy-in'' on national security strategy at the local level.
    Sharpening the military skills of our National Guard members while 
demonstrating their ability and willingness to enhance the quality of 
life for hemispheric neighbors is just one benefit of this timely and 
innovative engagement. We are firmly committed to sustaining this 
effort which has our Guardsmen helping to shape emerging democracies, 
and preparing for and improving readiness by engaging in international 
events and activities, and responding as our national security needs 
require.
    As part of the National Guard's State Partnership Program, National 
Guard personnel participate in various command-sponsored activities. 
The National Guard participates in programs such as the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization's Partnership for Peace program, European Command's 
Joint Contact Team Program, U.S. Southern Command's Traditional 
Commanders in Chief Activities Program, and similar activities 
sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff 
and the State Department.
    National Guard personnel, and the militia system under which they 
operate, are models for the role of a military in a democratic society. 
They provide an influential example of how a military force can be 
effective while demonstrating military subordination to civil 
authorities and illustrate how a military force of the people remains 
committed to the people. The wealth of civilian skills our National 
Guard members take overseas--and the diversity of non-military 
professions they represent--are also important, giving our men and 
women a versatility and credibility as goodwill ambassadors that no 
other American military arm can match.
Future of the National Guard in Homeland Security
    Virtually every policy expert in Washington seems to agree that the 
National Guard is a central military institution for the security of 
the homeland. This is a sentiment echoed in the Hart-Rudman report, by 
former generals, and respected authorities all across the spectrum. We 
agree. To arrive at that end state, however, it is not necessary to 
turn the National Guard inside out.
    Various commentators have said that the National Guard should be 
reoriented, reorganized, retrained and re-equipped. In truth, the 
National Guard needs to be empowered for success on both the home front 
and the warfront--precisely where it has always been oriented. 
Initiatives such as the Army National Guard Division Redesign Study 
(ADRS) are underway to help resolve these questions.
            Dual Mission Orientation
    The enduring value of the National Guard has always been its 
orientation on both protecting the lives and property of Americans here 
at home and on going to war to support American interests globally.
    The National Guard has participated with distinction in every major 
armed conflict of this nation and this mission should never be 
diminished. The special utility for the nation is that in addition to 
being a critical war-fighting asset, the National Guard is also a 
crucial source of local and state emergency response support. Both are 
critically important to the nation. Keeping both missions together is 
critical to the future strength of the National Guard. The resources, 
personnel, equipment, and training provided to accomplish the war-
fighting role are in most cases the same resources that are needed and 
allow the National Guard to accomplish the local and state support 
role.
    One specific example of this ``dual-missioned'' capability is found 
in the combat capability of our F-16's flying over America. Since day 
one, these units rely heavily on Precision Targeting Pods for visual 
identification while at the same time using this critical equipment in 
their Aerospace Expeditionary Force Air Superiority role in Operation 
Southern and Northern Watch overseas.
    The National Guard is willing to take on a greater role in 
performing the Homeland Security mission, however it is more important 
than ever that it maintain its Total Force combat and combat support 
mission capability. All enemies of the United States take note when the 
National Guard is deployed in combat because the enemy identifies the 
National Guard as the grass roots support of the local people in that 
conflict. The National Guard constitutes the local community and the 
state government support of any war effort that our country engages in.
    The capacity of the National Guard Bureau to effectively maintain 
awareness, conduct coordination and provide guidance and resources to 
the National Guard must be strong to meet the needs of Homeland 
Security. The new National Guard Bureau Office of Homeland Security is 
one step in that direction and was an important asset in the nearly 
overnight execution of the airport security mission. As the National 
Guard's part in the security of the homeland solidifies, the National 
Guard Bureau's demonstrated capability and many years of successful 
experience in effectively coordinating across 54 states and territories 
will be put to good use.
Assessing National Guard Roles In Homeland Security
    As a force consisting of both Army and Air Force assets the 
National Guard Bureau has a wide variety of capabilities that are 
available to support the many facets of Homeland Security. The seven 
mission areas that have been identified within the Homeland Security 
area are: (1) Combating Terrorism; (2) Military Assistance to Civilian 
Authorities; (3) Responding To Chemical, Biological, Radiological, 
Nuclear and high-yield Explosives Incidents; (4) Missile Defense; (5) 
Critical Infrastructure Protection; (6) Information Operations; and (7) 
Protecting the Nation's Sovereignty.
    The National Guard, with its community-based state-organized 
structure, is uniquely qualified and situated to provide a timely 
response. With a military focused force and established command, 
control and communications, National Guard structure addresses these 
mission areas as the front line for the Department of Defense in 
Homeland Security.
            Combating Terrorism
    The National Guard is the primary provider of immediate military 
resources, including units and personnel at the local and state level 
in the combating of terrorism. Again, because they are deployed in the 
state and have an immediate command, control and communications 
capability they can respond quickly to support local and state 
authorities. Within the state, the Adjutant General and the state 
National Guard possess the local knowledge of the terrain, the assets, 
the vulnerabilities and the local and state agencies. This expertise is 
a powerful tool in combating terrorism and, as such, it may be in the 
best interest of the nation to use this expertise when the application 
of federal military assets is required. The National Guard can assist 
in the mission of combating terrorism by providing a coordinated and 
mutual supporting approach. This approach provides appropriate 
assistance at the local/state levels and, as required, at the national 
level. It reinforces the primary mission of the National Guard to 
provide combat ready forces for the United States Army and Air Force.
    While the National Guard can and does provide force protection and 
other mission support, much of the National Guard's capability for 
combating terrorism lies in the realm of consequence management. There 
are a number of capabilities within the National Guard that could be 
brought to bear on the terrorist threat before an attack occurs. 
Specifically, because of its unique capability to provide military 
support to law enforcement agencies, the National Guard is also well 
positioned to play an important role in the detection and prevention of 
terrorist attacks. In much the same way that today's National Guard 
assets are so effectively employed in the war on drugs, they could 
similarly be employed in the war on terrorism. Special military 
equipment and skills have fought drugs with surveillance, aviation 
support, inspections and information analysis. In another example, 
Mobile Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Systems, which typically are 
employed in the search for drugs, were recently employed to enhance 
border security. The National Guard is prepared to move beyond 
consequence management to more broadly leverage our assets for 
employment in other phases of the war on terrorism. As an example, the 
193rd Special Operations Group from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is 
currently deployed in both the war on drugs as well as the War on 
Terrorism--providing high-demand psychological operations capability.
            Military Assistance to Civilian Authorities (MACA)
    Daily the National Guard is on the front line providing federally 
trained and equipped forces for the states and local communities in 
this critical area. Activities included in this mission are law 
enforcement support, assistance during civil disturbances, counterdrug 
support, and combating terrorism. The National Guard is a unique 
military force because it can act on missions outside the framework of 
posse comitatus. This applies as long as they are under the control of 
the state.
    In the subset of military support to civilian authorities, the 
National Guard is renowned for providing assistance in disaster-related 
civil emergencies. The immediately responsive manpower, equipment, and 
command, control and communications are always the governor's first 
call when local, state or regional capabilities need additional 
support. The ability of National Guard forces to operate across state 
lines was perfectly demonstrated when the state of West Virginia fought 
floods using National Guard assets from five states under provisions of 
the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. The National Guard works 
closely with the local and state emergency managers and their national 
Federal Emergency Management Agency network responding to natural 
disasters (forest fires, floods and storms) and other actions where 
consequence management is necessary.
            Consequence Management
    In the past three years, the National Guard, with the help of 
Congress, the Department of Defense, and the Army, has established a 
new capability to support local, state and federal authorities in 
dealing with the consequences of a chemical, biological, radiological, 
nuclear or explosive terrorist event. Thirty-two Weapons of Mass 
Destruction Civil Support Teams (CST) have been established. Our newly 
certified Civil Support Teams provided Weapons of Mass Destruction 
support in their operational debut during the September terrorist 
attacks.
    The 32 CSTs will provide state and local authorities specialized 
expertise and technical assistance to the incident commander to: (1) 
Assess the situation; determine the type of weapon used and the likely 
consequences; (2) advise the incident commander on potential courses of 
action; and (3) assist the local incident commander's response strategy 
with cutting edge technology and expertise.
    Operationally, these teams are under the command and control of the 
governors through their respective Adjutants General. However, the 
National Guard Bureau provides national operational procedures and 
operational coordination to facilitate the employment of these teams to 
provide depth and backup capability to states currently without a full-
time CST. After some difficult starts these teams have very rapidly 
progressed through a team effort by Department of Defense, U.S. Army 
and the National Guard Bureau to reassure the states that these teams 
have achieved the highest state of readiness.
            Missile Defense
    Missile Defense (MD) is expected to be a major mission for the 
Department of Defense. As currently planned, the Department of the Army 
has the overall responsibility for the ground-based, mid-course element 
of the proposed missile defense system. The Army National Guard would 
provide personnel to man significant portions of the ground-based 
element.
    The current plan is for the Army National Guard to be the force 
provider for the U.S. Army Ground Based Midcourse Segment of MD, not 
the proposed MD Test Bed. Approximately 300 Active Guard and Reserve 
personnel will support missile defense in various states, including 
Alaska and Colorado. If a decision to employ a missile defense system 
is made, the Army National Guard will provide the operational force.
            Critical Infrastructure Protection
    In the mission area of Critical Infrastructure Protection the 
National Guard has the capability to expeditiously provide personnel 
and units throughout the entire nation and its territories. This may be 
required in an environment where much of our military force, to include 
the National Guard, has already been deployed overseas while terrorist 
activities may require significantly increased vigilance at home.
    Because of the dual state and federal status of the National Guard, 
and the fact 23 of the Adjutants General are also the head of their 
State Emergency Management Agency, a good deal of focus and expertise 
on infrastructure protection already exists in the National Guard and 
could be a strong basis upon which to build future, broader capability.
            Information Operations
    The National Guard has units and capabilities assigned in both the 
Army and Air National Guard in this mission area. The Army National 
Guard units are assigned to the 54 states and territories, plus three 
additional teams work under the guidance of the Army's Land Information 
Warfare Activity, a part of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security 
Command. The National Guard has a Joint Web Risk Assessment Cell that 
scans defense web networks to determine risk and provide assessments 
for follow-on action. In addition to the capabilities of the combat 
information operation units, the National Guard also has Vulnerability 
Assessment Teams and Field Support teams that provide enhanced 
protection.
    The Air National Guard is currently expanding its role in 
information operations with the establishment of a new ``assurance'' 
unit in Washington State and a new unit in Maryland in partnership with 
the National Security Agency.
            Protecting the Nation's Sovereignty
    From its inception, the National Guard has been involved in 
protecting the sovereignty of the nation. Today portions of that 
mission are carried out by the Air National Guard in performance of the 
air defense mission conducted through First Air Force and other units. 
First Air Force, an Active-Duty Numbered Air Force operated extensively 
by members of the National Guard, coordinates with units operating 
throughout the continental United States. While a land attack is not 
considered a significant threat, the National Guard plays a key part in 
the plans for the land defense of the United States. Additionally, the 
National Guard (Army and Air) is an integral part of the ongoing 
counterdrug efforts wherever they are conducted. The National Guard is 
also assisting port and border control authorities to safeguard our 
nation's borders.
National Guard Counterdrug Program
    Continuing our mission of defending America from the flow of 
illegal drugs, approximately 3,500 soldiers and airmen with skills in 
foreign languages, intelligence analysis, map-making, communications, 
engineering, diving, marijuana eradication, transportation, logistics, 
cargo inspection, and surface and air reconnaissance were involved in 
counterdrug operations in fiscal year 2001. Illegal drug profits are 
often used to finance the work of terrorists. Consequently our fight 
against illegal drug use is a fight for our children's future and 
homeland security.
    The National Guard recognizes that the nation's illicit drug crisis 
is not exclusively a problem of demand or supply, but stems from both. 
Because drug abuse continues to threaten the health of our citizens as 
well as our national security, each National Guardsman knows that our 
neighborhoods and schools are battlefields where the struggle is waged 
one precious life at a time.
    In an effort to reduce drug demand, the National Guard's State 
Demand Reduction Programs are a leading edge ``force multiplier'' 
focused on assisting schools, parents, and anti-drug community-based 
organizations. Serving as drug-free role models, soldiers and airmen 
provide a positive influence to young Americans who increasingly face 
drugs, crime, and violence in our nation's school systems. As a partner 
of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the National Guard 
serves as a powerful catalyst for state and community-based mentoring 
programs, parenting groups, speaker bureaus, Adopt-A-School, Red 
Ribbon, and Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE) 
projects.
    Our personnel continuously participate and support a number of 
proven drug demand reduction programs nationwide that focus on 
community coalition building, substance abuse education, youth 
mentoring, anti-drug message broadcasting and distribution, leadership 
development within vulnerable groups, and the promotion of high 
standards of citizenship.
    In the effort to reduce drug supply within the continental United 
States, the National Guard supports various federal, state and local 
law enforcement agencies, task forces, and community-based prevention 
organizations. Law enforcement agencies greatly depend on the National 
Guard for specialized military equipment and highly trained soldiers 
and airmen, without which many interdiction operations would cease. 
They perform duties such as posting watch on our nation's borders, 
preparing and interpreting intelligence materials, detecting and 
eradicating marijuana, performing non-intrusive inspections at U.S. 
ports of entry, and translating court-ordered wire tap tapes into 
English for use in federal prosecutions of drug-related crimes.
    In our federal role, we support our Commander-in-Chief by detecting 
and monitoring attempts to smuggle narcotics into the United States. 
Members of the National Guard fly on the Airborne Warning and Control 
System (AWACS) and the Patrol Orion aircraft to identify suspected and 
known drug smuggling aircraft in the Caribbean and South America. 
Parallel to this mission, National Guard members on federal active duty 
orders collect and report near-real-time narco-trafficking 
intelligence, provide radar surveillance support to the U.S. Customs 
Service Air Marine Interdiction Coordination Center and the Joint 
Southern Surveillance Reconnaissance Operations Center. In addition, 
the National Guard provides mechanical and logistical support to the 
U.S. Air Force Counter drug Radar Surveillance and Control sites in 
Colombia and Peru.
    The National Guard has established goals and strategies to guide 
our efforts as we provide support to Law Enforcement Agencies. The 
first goal is to increase the cost effectiveness of our program. This 
goal will be accomplished by increasing support to Law Enforcement 
Agencies via specialized technology, specialized military skills, and 
counterdrug training. The second goal of the National Guard counterdrug 
Program is to support drug reduction efforts within our communities by 
increasing the level of support to High Intensity Drug Trafficking 
Areas, state and local task forces, and local community coalitions. The 
third goal is to enhance the quality of our workforce by increasing the 
amount of training for counterdrug personnel, and conducting annual 
reviews of existing regulations and policies.
    The National Guard will continue to provide valuable support to 
various federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, task forces, 
and community-based prevention organizations so that drug use will 
continue to decrease.
Summary
    The National Guard has tremendous quick response capability to 
support the local, state and federal agencies in accomplishing the 
Homeland Security mission. The National Guard Bureau, through the 
Adjutants General, is the primary line of communications between the 
several states and territories and the Department of Defense on 
military matters. It has been performing this role at the local, state 
and federal level since its inception nearly 365 years ago. With the 
necessary resources, the National Guard will continue to protect and 
defend our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic.
                     on guard for the 21st century
    As we continue to advance the role of the National Guard in the 
21st Century, there are numerous concerns over shortages and 
authorization levels in critical areas such as modernization of major 
weapon systems and adequately compensating our personnel. Funding must 
increase in order to meet new and expanding requirements.
    The National Guard must recruit, train, and retain people with the 
broad skills and good judgment needed to address the dynamic challenges 
of the 21st century. Having the right combination of imaginative, 
highly motivated military and civilian personnel at all levels is the 
essential prerequisite for achieving success. Advanced technology and 
new operational concepts cannot be fully exploited unless we have 
highly qualified and motivated enlisted personnel and officers who not 
only can operate these highly technical systems, but also can lead 
effectively in the highly complex military environment of today. That 
environment needs the commitment of not only citizen-soldiers, but of 
every American.
    Citizen involvement in national defense is critical to the 
longevity and health of democratic government. It is a reinforcing 
thread in the fabric of democracy itself. How the leadership defines 
our national security interest, in the end, is validated through the 
support of the people. Our rich heritage of being involved in national 
defense is rapidly taking on new dimensions. As we transform our 
organization, we must ensure that we recognize, respect, and protect 
our citizens' ``commitment to serve.'' Only by preserving this 
commitment can we attract the needed personnel to our ranks and retain 
them in service throughout a productive career.
    We entrust a tremendous responsibility in our young men and women 
and are committed to ensure that such trust is not taken for granted. 
Today's National Guard must provide good quality of life programs and 
training on state of the art equipment to ensure we recruit, deploy and 
retain the quality force our country deserves.
Full-time Support
    National Guard full-time support functions are diverse and cover a 
wide range of unit-level activities that include administration, 
training, logistics, recruiting, and retention. Our full-time force 
contributes to our success in fulfilling our role in the National 
Military Strategy. National Guard full-time Active Guard and Reserve 
(AGR) members and military technicians are uniformed soldiers and 
airmen who serve as links between state and local communities and 
provide different workplace roles to support the nation's defense 
posture. Full-time support personnel are essential to the 
interoperability of the National Guard and active component and act as 
readiness multipliers during periods of increased demands and limited 
resources. The Army and Air National Guard have both recently submitted 
increased full-time support requirements.
    Full-time support personnel are also critical to the National 
Guard's ability to perform its federal and state roles. They are the 
single, most important element to our readiness capability providing 
stability and corporate knowledge at every level of command.
    The number of National Guard full-time technicians and Active Guard 
Reserves must increase in order to meet new and expanding requirements.
Maintaining a Military of Dedicated Professionals
    The challenges faced by the National Guard in attracting and 
retaining National Guard members differs in several respects from that 
of the Active Component Services. For example, we are often constrained 
by where an individual lives and works. Unlike Active Component 
members, who are accustomed to frequent moves during a military career, 
the men and women of the National Guard have civilian commitments and 
responsibilities, in addition to their military duties, that tie them 
to the local area. Hence, we must target our efforts in the areas and 
regions where vacancies exist.
    Our current economic climate has caused us to be more aggressive in 
our approach to recruit and retain quality members to support mission 
requirements. Our recruiting successes are a direct result of 
additional resources and initiatives, and heavy involvement by 
Adjutants General, commanders and the members themselves.
    The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Reserve Affairs 
lists the following as reasons that Service members leave or consider 
leaving the National Guard and Reserves: civilian job and family 
conflicts, pay problems, lack of recognition, limited advancement or 
promotion opportunities, and work not challenging. The National Guard 
must provide a challenging, caring environment with upward mobility to 
retain our members. We must also look to not only retain the Service 
member, but also retain his or her family.
    Members of the National Guard expect to continue their civilian 
career even after agreeing to join. Thus, their military 
responsibilities may take a secondary role, behind their primary 
profession and means of support.
    The National Guard has implemented a number of programs in an 
effort to retain our personnel. We've added more recruiters, conducted 
a national advertising campaign, and expanded education incentives. 
Additionally, we have implemented Aviation Continuation Pay and special 
salary rates for aviators, as well as authorized special pay and 
enlistment bonuses for critical specialties. Continued support for our 
most effective recruiting incentives, including enlistment bonuses, the 
Army College Fund, Aircrew Incentive Pay, and the Loan Repayment 
Program, will help us continue to meet future manpower requirements.
            National Guard Family Program
    National Guard families are as crucial to the success of a soldier 
or airman as readiness is to a mission. The support of families help 
citizen soldiers and airmen perform at their optimum level whether in 
the field, in the sky or at their civilian jobs. In an effort to 
increase the awareness that family programs provide critical support to 
the families of our deployed troops, the National Guard declared 2000 
the Year of the Family. To assist families in this challenging journey, 
state Family Program coordinators, community managers, full-time Family 
Readiness and Support employees, and volunteers give guidance and 
information on how to cope with the demands of their loved ones in the 
military.
    State Family Program coordinators and volunteers work together to 
promote family member volunteerism, family readiness groups and 
networks, quality of life issues, and to facilitate family readiness 
training throughout the National Guard. During periods of increased 
Guard activity, such as deployments and state emergencies, Family 
Assistance Centers are set up to support the immediate and post 
deployment needs of families. The Air National Guard has recently 
identified the need for and begun hiring dedicated family readiness and 
support personnel at the wing level.
    Though every family is different, there is one constant. All are 
concerned for the safety of their family member serving in unknown 
parts of the world and here at home. The act of terrorism on the United 
States has placed National Guard men and women in positions of 
increased high alert to protect this nation. Personal and Family 
Readiness Guides are available for both Army and Air National Guard 
members and their families. This guide gives the families various 
checklists and tools to help them plan. The Guard and Reserve Family 
Readiness Programs Toolkit, which is a comprehensive set of resources, 
is also a product available to families.
    A key component to keeping National Guard families ready is to make 
sure the lines of communication are open with their National Guard 
members. Advances in technology have made this an easier task than the 
days of simply writing letters. Today, National Guard members can email 
their families on an almost daily basis depending upon their mission. 
Others may also have the opportunity for video-conferencing, thus being 
able to see their loved ones face-to-face. This technique of 
communication affords comfort to the family as well as the National 
Guard member, helping retain a highly trained and experienced force.
    It is important to remember the total National Guard family. A 
Guard Family Youth Symposium was held in 2001 that gave National Guard 
teens and youth the opportunity to come together as a unique group. The 
group gathered for five days in Washington, D.C. to discuss issues that 
were important to them as children of National Guard members. The group 
returned to their states with new energy, ready to reach out to other 
teens coping with the deployments of parents and life as a youth in the 
National Guard family.
            Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR)
    To foster positive employer-National Guard partnerships, the 
National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) 
was chartered by Presidential proclamation in 1972 under the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense. It is the sole agency within the Department 
of Defense directed to ``promote public and private understanding of 
the National Guard and Reserve in order to gain employer and community 
support to ensure the availability and readiness of National Guard and 
Reserve forces.'' The ESGR is comprised of a community-based volunteer 
network of over 4,500 members, who serve on 54 committees (in every 
state, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin 
Islands), implementing employer support programs within their local 
communities. The volunteers implement a variety of programs and 
services for both Reserve Component members and their employers. They 
provide information on employment rights and responsibilities related 
to the performance of military duty, offer informal employment conflict 
mediation, and conduct employer recognition and public affairs events 
that promote understanding of the vital role of the National Guard and 
Reserve.
    Today, in terms of both manpower and force capability, the Reserve 
Components comprise nearly half of the Total Force. As a result, 
employers are being asked to sustain a much greater level of employee 
absence and related consequences. We have long recognized that without 
the dedicated patriots who employ the men and women of the National 
Guard, our militia could not perform at the magnificent level we see 
today. In fact, 2001 was the National Guard's Year of the Employer. Our 
soldiers and airmen sacrifice when they answer the call to duty, and in 
a parallel manner, so do their civilian employers.
    ESGR recognizes certain difficulties for employers stem from 
military duty that is aggravated by the increased operational tempo. 
These difficulties could be minimized by modification of Department of 
Defense employment processes. Such adjustment would reaffirm a 
partnership of mutual respect and open communication between military 
and civilian employers. These adjustments might include such items as 
improving management of the duration of military service and making 
military recall procedures more responsive to employer needs.
    Sustaining employer goodwill and support is essential to ensuring 
the availability and readiness of the Reserve forces. This partnership 
for the military is not just a mutual benefit--its a necessity.
    We will continue to partner with the National Committee for 
Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve to ensure our employers 
remain satisfied with our ``shared'' people and their dedicated 
commitment to continued military service. At the same time, we have an 
opportunity to increase the visibility of the military in the 
communities to help the Total Force bridge the growing civil-military 
gap. In our effort to educate America's employers, we educate a large 
community of leaders on the mission and values of military service.
    It is because of the exceptional people in our units that we 
continue to overcome these challenges. It is the commitment of our 
people that is the heart and soul of the National Guard. While we've 
put more on our members' plates, we've done it smart and with attention 
to bonuses, grade relief, grade enhancements, and employer and family 
support.
Equal Opportunity and the ``Year of Diversity''
    The Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB) has concluded that 
the longstanding Equal Opportunity efforts of the National Guard should 
be augmented by an increased focus on diversity. The National Guard has 
designated year 2002 the ``Year of Diversity.''
    The National Guard Bureau's Equal Opportunity Division (NGB-EO) is 
a Joint Staff office comprised of both military and civilian personnel. 
The NGB-EO vision is: ``To create and sustain an environment in the 
National Guard that values inclusiveness and professionalism; to offer 
all personnel an equal opportunity for success; to enable the National 
Guard to meet its federal and state mission by taking full advantage of 
the demographic realities of the Twenty-First century.''
    The CNGB and the Army and Air National Guard Directors have all 
launched diversity initiatives designed to strengthen the norms of 
inclusiveness that are essential to keeping our National Guard an 
effective, highly diverse, mission-ready organization. These 
initiatives include targeted training programs and curriculum designed 
to promote these inclusive norms.
    Diversity goals are both right and smart. The Year of Diversity is 
an opportunity to plan and take action to position the National Guard 
for future growth, as well as a time to celebrate gains through 
diversity.
National Guard Youth Programs
    Consistent with its role in local communities and state mission, 
the National Guard operates two youth programs, ChalleNGe and Starbase. 
These programs make use of the National Guard's strengths in 
organization, planning, execution, self-discipline and leadership, 
leveraging its existing infrastructure in the states, so there is great 
value added with a minimum of additional resources.
    ChalleNGe is a congressionally mandated program for youth between 
16 and 18 years of age who are not in trouble with the law and are drug 
free, unemployed, and have dropped out of high school. The program 
consists of a five-month residential phase with a one-year post-
residential mentoring phase. Its goal is to significantly improve the 
life skills and employment potential of these youth through military-
based training.
    Starbase is a nonresidential program for students in grades K-12, 
which targets ``at risk'' students, and provides instruction 
specifically designed to meet a state's math and science objectives. 
The program provides the students with real-world applications of math 
and science through experiential learning, simulations, and experiments 
in aviation and space-related fields.
              the army national guard director's overview
    During fiscal year 2001, our nation suffered one of the most 
horrific acts of war on American soil. To those whose sacrifices and 
selfless service purchased for us the privileges of freedom, democracy, 
and unmatched opportunity, we pay tribute and express a deep sense of 
gratitude. The events of September 11 clearly demonstrated that when 
called, the Army National Guard (ARNG) is there to respond at home and 
abroad.
    Two hours after the attacks, Army National Guard soldiers began 
arriving at the site of the World Trade Center in New York City, 
providing site security and engineering support to clear away the 
rubble. That same evening, military police of the Maryland Army 
National Guard arrived at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., to provide 
security around the crash site. Soon after, we sent soldiers to our 
nation's airports to take back the skies from terrorists, restoring 
American citizens' peace of mind.
    ARNG soldiers represent their communities as college students, 
teachers, police officers, lawyers, firefighters, doctors, moms, dads, 
sons and daughters. These everyday people are what makes the Army 
National Guard so special.
    Our units have capabilities unrealized by the American people. Even 
with the unexpected events of September 11 and its subsequent 
requirements, we are barely scratching the surface of what the Army 
National Guard can do. Our soldiers are deployed throughout the world 
in support of Operation Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom, in addition 
to the normal ongoing training missions, exercises and peacekeeping 
operations. These are all in support of our National Military Strategy 
and represent a small percentage of the more than 350,000 ARNG 
soldiers.
    These missions mean soldiers are absent from their families. The 
families' willingness to endure these hardships to support their 
soldiers is critical to the effectiveness of the force. The sacrifices 
these ARNG families endure should not go unnoticed by our nation.
    Another crucial element of our success is the employer. In 
recognition of this, the National Guard celebrated 2001 as the ``Year 
of the Employer''. The missions our citizen-soldiers perform are 
important to national security and world stability. However, when these 
missions take soldiers out of their workplace, especially for extended 
periods of time, employers can and often do experience hardship. It is 
a tremendous sacrifice that employers make and that sacrifice is 
recognized.
    The National Guard Bureau has declared 2002 as our ``Year of 
Diversity''. I plan to leverage demographic shifts in order to 
capitalize on the diverse talents of the American people. The ARNG will 
recruit, train, retain, qualify and advance a force that reflects 
America, acknowledging the contributions of all its members to enhance 
our service to community, state and nation.
    The fiscal year 2003 Posture Statement provides you with an update 
on what the ARNG has been doing, the progress we are making and how we 
will help meet the needs of the country as defined in our National 
Military Strategy. Some of the major issues addressed are equipment 
modernization, operational tempo, readiness, full-time manning and 
resourcing.
    Additionally, we outline the many challenges we face as an 
organization. We particularly focus on our ability to balance 
requirements placed upon us by our states and nation while still 
maintaining the support of families and employers versus our ability to 
sustain acceptable readiness. The strides made by the ARNG in 2001 are 
evidenced by the performance of our units.
    Our foundation is first-rate individual soldiers, molded into 
teams. These soldiers and teams are what make the ARNG a very special 
organization indeed.
    The nation relies on the ARNG now more than ever to accomplish an 
increasing number of vital missions. We owe it to our soldiers to 
provide them with the best equipment, best training and a dedicated 
full-time support staff. As the Director of the Army National Guard, I 
will ensure that our soldiers are adequately resourced as a premiere 
fighting force, ready to defend our national interests. Our ability to 
be ready when called upon by the American people is, and will always 
be, our top priority and our bottom line.

                                          Roger C. Schultz,
              Lieutenant General, GS Director, Army National Guard.
                     the army national guard today
    America's goals are to promote peace, sustain freedom, and 
encourage prosperity. Our world role provides a basis for a network of 
friendships and alliances with other countries to flourish. History 
shows repeatedly that the prosperity of America is linked to the 
prosperity of others. America's involvement in the world also 
contributes directly to global peace and freedom. The Army National 
Guard provides an essential service to achieve these goals, as it helps 
assure friends and allies of an unwavering U.S. commitment to freedom 
now and in the future.
The Army National Guard in Stability and Support Operations
    The Army National Guard deployed over 21,000 trained and ready 
personnel in more than 85 countries in support of regional war fighting 
Commanders in Chief (CINCs). These deployments include sending soldiers 
to peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, Southwest Asia, Operation 
Joint Forge (Bosnia), Operation Joint Guardian (Kosovo) and Operation 
Desert Spring (Kuwait/Saudi Arabia). This represents an increase in 
deployments of more than 8 percent over fiscal year 2000.
    Reliance upon the Army National Guard continues to increase for 
fiscal year 2002, during which over 24,000 Army National Guard soldiers 
will be deployed worldwide in more than 89 countries and participate in 
more than 75 Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff and CINC sponsored events. 
This represents an increase in deployments of more than 12 percent over 
fiscal year 2001 and 20 percent over the two years prior (2000/2001).
            U.S. Joint Forces Command Exercises (JFCOM)
    Prior to fiscal year 2001, the Army National Guard did not 
participate in Joint Forces Command Exercises (JFCOM). Beginning in 
fiscal year 2001 nearly 900 service members participated in JFCOM 
exercises such as Joint Task Force Exercise and Unified Endeavor. Army 
National Guard division and brigade headquarters participated in both 
multi-service (category 2) and Joint Force (category 3) exercises. 
These exercises improve skills in joint interoperability areas and 
prepare units to participate in higher echelon exercises.
            U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)--Central and South America
    As the lead command in the New Horizons Nicaragua, Engineering 
exercise in fiscal year 2002, the Army National Guard will deploy more 
than 3,200 personnel in support of the SOUTHCOM Chairman, Joint Chiefs 
of Staff (CJCS) exercise program. The Army National Guard provided 
extensive support to Active Component (AC) forces in SOUTHCOM through 
the Overseas Deployment for Training (ODT) program this past fiscal 
year.
    In fiscal year 2001, Army National Guard aviation aircrews and 
support personnel from Alaska and Iowa provided general support for New 
Horizons. The Army National Guard aviators completed a multitude of 
missions in the Central American countries of Honduras, Guatemala and 
Paraguay during fiscal year 2001. During fiscal year 2001, the Army 
National Guard deployed nearly 3,500 soldiers to support Central 
America through Medical Readiness Training Exercises (MEDRETE), unit 
exchanges and joint-combined exercises such as NUEVOS HORIZONTES, 
TRADEWINDS and FUERZAS ALIADAS.
            U.S. European Command (EUCOM)
    In fiscal year 2002, more than 11,000 Army National Guard soldiers 
will participate in more than a dozen exercises in addition to 
supporting annual infantry and engineer Opposing Force (OPFOR) 
rotations in the Combat Maneuver Training Center-Europe in Germany. The 
Army National Guard will also provide direct and general support 
maintenance units to perform readiness enhancing annual training 
periods at the Equipment Maintenance Center-Europe.
    Additionally, the Army National Guard will provide Combat Service 
(CS) and Combat Service Support (CSS) functions across the spectrum to 
include aviation maintenance, military police, signal, medical, Judge 
Advocate General (JAG), chaplain, finance, public affairs and engineer 
facility support. Total Army National Guard support to Europe during 
fiscal year 2001 exceeded 13,000 soldiers.
            U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)--Middle East
    The Army National Guard support to CENTCOM through the ODT program 
increased to nearly 900 service members in fiscal year 2001. This 
number will grow to more than 1,000 in fiscal year 2002. This support 
primarily consists of military intelligence, military police, Special 
Forces and communication efforts in support of Active Component (AC) 
exercises, e.g. INTRINSIC ACTION, LUCKY SENTINEL, NATURAL FIRE, IRON 
COBRA and BRIGHT STAR.
            U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM)--Asia
    Bilateral and multinational training exercises require Army 
National Guard participation in the Pacific Theater. During fiscal year 
2002, the Army National Guard will deploy more than 3,200 soldiers to 
participate in three major Joint Chiefs of Staff exercises in Korea and 
Japan. Also linguists, engineers, aviation, maintenance, and public 
affairs will provide support to CINC Pacific (CINCPAC) and CINC Korea 
(CINCK) in non-exercise events. In fiscal year 2001, more than 2,600 
Army National Guard personnel participated in these exercises.
            U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
    The Department of Defense has a number of Special Operations Forces 
to include Navy Seals and USAF Special Operations Wings. The majority 
of The Army's Special Operations capability resides in the Army 
National Guard. As key players in the National Military Strategy, the 
19th and 20th Special Forces Groups (located in 15 states) will provide 
more than 800 personnel in support of AC Special Forces missions during 
fiscal year 2002 as a result of operational deployments throughout the 
world.
    Both 19th and 20th Special Forces (SF) Groups supported CJCS 
Exercises and Joint Combined Exercise Training (JCET) in several 
Theaters with a total of 1,411 soldiers deploying on 28 missions to 18 
countries. In the Pacific Theater, the Army National Guard Special 
Forces provided 510 soldiers to support PACOM Exercises and JCETs. 
These exercises included FOAL EAGLE, ULCHI FOCUS LENS, and COBRA GOLD. 
Of the 384 soldiers deployed to PACOM, 254 participated in CJCS 
Exercises and JCETs in Korea. In the U.S. Southern Command, the Army 
National Guard Special Forces supported TRADE WINDS and CABANAS CJCS 
Exercises as well as conducting JCETs with 506 soldiers in Honduras, 
Jamaica, Argentina, Antigua, and Trinidad.
            Major Exercises in the Continental United States (CONUS)
    Army National Guard units throughout the country trained as part of 
the combined arms team in several major CONUS exercises. More than 
17,700 soldiers from 158 units trained on mission essential tasks 
through participation in exercises such as ROVING SANDS, GOLDEN COYOTE, 
ROLLING THUNDER, GRECIAN FIREBOLT, PURPLE DRAGON, ROAD RUNNER, PHANTOM 
SABER and GLOBAL PATRIOT.
Operation Joint Forge (OJF)
    Soldiers from the Colorado and Wyoming Army National Guard's 1022nd 
Air Ambulance Company deployed to Bosnia to provide aerial medical 
evacuation support for Stabilization Forces 9 (SFOR 9). The 1022nd AA 
provided four UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters, aircrews and support 
personnel during this Presidential Select Reserve Call-up deployment in 
support of peace keeping efforts in the region
Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA)
    Army National Guard aviation continues to a play vital role in our 
Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA) missions. Army National 
Guard aviation assisted in extinguishing numerous forest fires during 
fiscal year 2001. Army National Guard aviation assisted local, state 
and federal law enforcement agencies in countering the trade and 
cultivation of illicit drugs within the borders of the United States.
    Army National Guard aviation crews and assets were some of the 
first to respond during the tragic events that occurred on Sept. 11, 
2001, in New York City, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. Army National 
Guard Aviation was on a high state of alert immediately following these 
events.
    In New York, the Army National Guard provided 23 utility aircraft 
to assist in the recovery efforts near the site of the World Trade 
Center. Another mission was to provide transportation for the 
deployment of rapid response teams to virtually anywhere in the 
country, as requested.
    The Pennsylvania Army National Guard had 33 aircraft standing by on 
a 15-minute response time from various airfields around the state. 
Their capabilities included mass casualty evacuation and fire fighting.
    The Air Ambulance Company from the District of Columbia National 
Guard was on site to support the 24 hours per day recovery operation at 
the Pentagon. Within hours of the attack, five aircraft and multiple 
crews deployed to the site to provide support. The crews were rotated 
every 12 hours on the grounds of the Pentagon to ensure aircrew 
endurance and aircraft availability.
    The Army National Guard will continue to provide vital aviation 
support to Homeland Security efforts.
Operation Desert Spring (ODS)
    The Army National Guard continues to provide aviation support to 
Operation Desert Spring in Kuwait. Aviation Task Force 211, consisting 
of aviation crews from the Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana Army National 
Guard, deployed in August 2001. Army National Guard AH-64 Apaches and 
UH-60 Blackhawks provide essential aviation support and force 
protection to the Operation Desert Spring mission in Southwest Asia.
Military Intelligence Operations
    In fiscal year 2001, Army National Guard Military Intelligence (MI) 
soldiers and units performed approximately 96,769 man-days of support. 
Operations ranged from language support in Mongolia to tactical 
intelligence support in the Balkans operations.
    Army National Guard MI soldiers and units supported all the 
Regional Commanders in Chief (CINCs) and their Major Subordinate 
Commands both inside and outside the continental United States. Army 
National Guard MI soldiers participated in joint exercises in Japan and 
acted as watch officers in Korea and for Joint Task Force Bravo in 
South America.
    The Army National Guard MI role in Balkans operations continues to 
grow. Teams and individuals augment active Army MI Battalions while the 
National Guard continues to stand-up tactical MI units to provide 
organic support to deploying National Guard Divisions. Army National 
Guard MI elements continue to provide essential MI mission and language 
augmentation to all Department of Defense elements, the Defense 
Intelligence Agency and the Department of Justice.
Information Operations Operational Support
    The Army National Guard continues to develop full spectrum 
Information Operations (IO) teams to support the broad range of Army 
missions. The Army National Guard IO Field Support Teams (FST's) 
provide tactical IO planning capabilities to the Army's divisions and 
corps. These FST personnel deployed in support of Army exercises, joint 
missions, and contingency operations.
    The Army National Guard, in partnership with the Combined Arms 
Center (CAC) at Fort Leavenworth, KS and Norwich University in Vermont 
is a key player in the development of Information Operations Training 
for the Army. Both network security technical training and Tactical IO 
Planning Courses are provided through the Vermont Training Battalion. 
Recently, the Army's first Functional Area 30 Qualification Course was 
developed in conjunction with the Army National Guard.
            the army national guard preparing for the future
    The War on Terrorism has focused the Department of Defense on the 
role of the military in Homeland Security. The Army National Guard is 
uniquely positioned to provide immediate support to domestic first 
responders in times of crisis. In the aftermath of the terrorist 
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Army National Guard soldiers provided a 
variety of supporting roles including site security, medical support 
and nuclear, biological and chemical site testing.
    The Army National Guard also provided more than 7,000 soldiers to 
augment airport security in more than 400 airports. Additionally, the 
Army National Guard was called upon to provide critical infrastructure 
protection to ammunition and chemical storage depots as well as 
augmenting security for numerous electrical, nuclear and transportation 
assets nationwide.
    To continue the critical work of our country a number of needs must 
be looked at. The Army National Guard has defined 11 key organizational 
goals that are critical to focus our support of the nation's defense. 
These goals are:
    Manning.--Develop and execute an Army-wide integrated human 
resource system to acquire, distribute, manage, compensate, retain and 
transition people, enabling the Army National Guard to provide combat 
ready units.
    Organizing.--Provide the maximum possible number of missioned Army 
National Guard units based on the Total Army Analysis (TAA) process, 
with required support as part of The Army's total force structure 
required to achieve directed capabilities.
    Equipping.--Obtain and distribute mission capable equipment to 
optimize Army National Guard unit readiness, modernization and force 
relevance.
    Readiness.--Ensure all Army National Guard units are resourced to 
attain and sustain readiness levels needed to meet Commanders in Chief 
(CINC) mission requirements and deployment timelines.
    Sustaining.--Provide appropriate and efficient support for 
personnel, equipment and operations to accomplish all Army National 
Guard missions.
    Training.--Produce ready units to meet the National Military 
Strategy. This requires the development of strategies and the planning, 
acquisition, distribution and execution of resources to train 
individual, leader and collective tasks in the live, virtual and 
constructive environments.
    Quality Installations.--Provide state-of-the-art, environmentally 
sound, community-based power projection platforms that integrate all 
functions required to sustain and enhance unit readiness and community 
support.
    Missioning.--100 percent of all Army National Guard force structure 
federally missioned--all Modified Table of Organization and Equipment 
(MTOE) units and Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) structure 
included within Time Phase Force Deployment Data (TPFDD) or supporting 
the Commander in Chief War plans.
    Quality of Life.--Provide an environment and culture that promotes 
equal opportunity for all, fosters environmental stewardship and 
provides for the safety, health and fitness of the force, families and 
communities.
    Knowledge Infrastructure.--Develop the infrastructure necessary to 
capture and create information and knowledge, store it in an organized 
manner, improve it, clarify it and make it accessible in a usable 
format.
    Resourcing.--Secure resources for all statutory and critical 
requirements. Achieve parity by Force Package across all components to 
provide trained and deployable forces for The Army and CINCs.
    The future years will present a variety of challenges for the Army 
National Guard. As we continue transitioning to the full spectrum force 
of choice, critical shortfalls in equipment modernization, real 
property maintenance and military construction must be addressed. The 
Army National Guard will continue taking a more active role as the 
traditional defender of our nation, at home and abroad.
                           manning the force
Army National Guard Full-Time Support
    To meet the challenge of the future years, the Chief, National 
Guard Bureau recognizes that additional Full-time Support 
authorizations are the number one priority for the Army National Guard. 
The National Guard does not currently have the full-time authorizations 
or the funding to adequately support readiness requirements for 
organization, administration, instruction, recruiting and training, 
maintenance of supplies, equipment and aircraft and other daily support 
functions. Full-Time Support levels directly impact readiness and are 
required to efficiently and effectively transition from peacetime to 
wartime posture. Full-Time Support personnel are critical links to the 
interoperability of the Army's components. Additional Full-Time Support 
personnel are the most serious funding challenge faced by the Army 
National Guard.
Recruiting and Retention
    Operational demands on the Armed Forces have taken a toll on active 
military personnel. Since the end of the Cold War, the Armed Forces 
experienced a reduction of total personnel while our security strategy 
has increased the demands placed on the reserve forces.
    To meet the increasing mission requirements on the Army National 
Guard, we must not only attract but also retain our soldiers. In an 
effort to diversify the force, the Army National Guard has developed 
several new programs to reach previously under-represented populations 
in our communities. One such program is an Army National Guard-
sponsored youth program that provides a life skills curriculum for 
financially disadvantaged youth. The second program is a series of Army 
National Guard-sponsored diversity career fairs. The third program is 
an English as a second language course taught in Army National Guard 
readiness centers
    The Army National Guard's fiscal year 2003 end strength objectives 
include achieving a selected reserve strength of 350,000--36,579 
commissioned and warrant officers and 313,421 enlisted personnel. To 
attain this goal, enlisted gains are programmed at 60,504 with officer 
gains at 3,627. Enlisted losses are projected not to exceed 62,333.
Enlisted Personnel Recruiting and Retention
    Enlisted personnel recruiting and retention were continuing success 
stories for the Army National Guard during fiscal year 2001. Enlisted 
accessions for the year exceeded the program objective of 60,252 by 
totaling 61,956 or 102.8 percent of the goal. Non-prior service 
accessions at 33,091 were 109.8 percent of the objective while prior 
service accessions at 28,865 represented 95.8 percent of the objective. 
These statistics reflect an accession mix of 53.4 percent non-prior 
service enlistments and 46.6 percent prior service enlistments. The 
overall Army National Guard loss rate through the end of fiscal year 
2001 was 19 percent versus an overall objective of 18 percent.
Educational Assistance
    Educational assistance continues to be an effective tool in 
improving recruiting and retention efforts in the Army National Guard. 
Increasing a soldier's educational standing not only benefits soldiers 
in their civilian lives but also helps the Army National Guard improve 
its quality and readiness objectives. During fiscal year 2001, $9.1 
million in tuition assistance was provided to 42,063 soldiers. In 
fiscal year 2002, the Army National Guard expects to provide $11.3 
million in tuition assistance to more than 30,000 soldiers and has 
increased the semester hour rate to match the rate offered by the other 
military Services.
Officer Accessions and Retention
    The total officer strength at the end of fiscal year 2001 was 
36,579. Officer end strength was 821 short of the programmed objective. 
The Army National Guard continues to have a higher than expected loss 
rate among Army National Guard officers. Some of this is attributed to 
resignation from the Army National Guard due to family pressures, 
Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO) and better income opportunities offered in 
the civilian sector.
    The shortage of company grade officers in the Army National Guard, 
particularly at the rank of captain, results in a large number of 
lieutenants and warrant officers occupying captain positions. Our 
company-grade shortfall in units creates a detrimental effect on Unit 
Status Reporting, and thus in our overall readiness posture, unit 
morale and unit climate.
    The Army National Guard continues to employ a number of measures to 
combat the critical shortfall in company grade and warrant officers. 
Measures targeted for execution include developing a robust advertising 
campaign; creating an officer/warrant officer recruiting and retention 
course; changing the coding for officer losses to ascertain reasons and 
identify patterns associated with junior officer attrition; 
capitalizing on alternate commissioning sources for increased 
accessioning into the Army National Guard; and identifying and 
resourcing programs to assist in the acquisition of new officers. These 
initiatives will contribute to the Army National Guard's ability to 
effectively man the force with quality officers and warrant officers.
Warrant Officer Personnel Management
    The Army National Guard continues to address significant challenges 
in warrant officer accession and personnel management. Of significant 
concern is the critical shortage of technical service warrant officers 
and the impact this has on unit readiness. Currently the assigned 
warrant officer strength is 81 percent fill of the authorized strength. 
Technical warrant officer strength is down to 71 percent, while 
aviation warrant officer strength has fallen slightly below 
requirements to 95 percent.
    In an attempt to address the declining strength within the 
technical warrant officer specialties, the Army National Guard is 
currently pursuing alternatives to mitigate the shortfall in our 
warrant officer strength.
Medical Readiness
    Identified in the Medical Readiness Campaign Plan, the Army 
National Guard Medical Strategic Goals for fiscal year 2003 are to 
support deployment of healthy soldiers, support deployment of the 
medical units, and facilitate family care. To achieve these goals, the 
mission of the Army National Guard Medical Team is to promote medical 
readiness of the Army National Guard, assuring that forces are ready 
and deployable for federal, state and community missions.
    The plan includes six focus areas. (1) Health Services Access/
Policy; (2) Health Care Operations; (3) Medical Personnel Management; 
(4) Medical Force Modernization; (5) Quality Management; and (6) 
Preventive Medicine.
    These initiatives allow the Army National Guard to accurately 
provide medical information for the partial mobilization, and State 
Active Duty calls to assist soldiers with the best possible health care 
coverage. Health care operations paved the way in tracking medical 
readiness data through the Medical Protection Occupational System 
(MEDPROS), allowing unit commanders and state headquarters to monitor 
the medical readiness of their soldiers.
    Medical Personnel Management evaluates the critical Military 
Occupational Skills (MOS) that the Army National Guard needs to acquire 
or retain. The Army is transitioning many of the enlisted medical MOSs 
to the Health Care Specialist, known as the 91W. Proactive planning in 
Medical Force Modernization has placed the Army National Guard as the 
leader in the number of individuals currently trained as a 91W. Quality 
Management and medical standards for physical profiles is a high 
priority in attaining medical deployability for our soldiers. 
Preventive Medicine is a key force multiplier.
             organizing the army national guard for success
    We have long recognized that transformation of the U.S. military is 
essential to meet the new strategic era and the internal and external 
challenges facing America. Today the Army National Guard works 
tirelessly to ensure that we are properly organized, trained, equipped, 
and postured to provide for the effective defense of the United States. 
The current array of ARNG forces provide the governors with a wide 
range of capabilities to deal with Homeland Security issues. These 
capabilities will be enhanced in the near future as additional Chemical 
and Military Police structure is activated.
Integrated Division concept
    The Army National Guard Division Redesign Study included a proposal 
to form two integrated Active Component/Army National Guard divisions. 
Each integrated division consists of an Active Component headquarters 
and three Army National Guard enhanced Separate Brigades (eSBs). On 
December 2, 1997, the Secretary of the Army approved establishing a 
mechanized division headquarters at Fort Riley, Kansas with a forward 
element at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and an infantry division 
headquarters at Fort Carson, Colorado. The 24th Infantry Division (-) 
and the 7th Infantry Division (-) formally activated on October 16, 
1999.
    The division headquarters are non-deployable and tailored to 
provide training and readiness oversight and evaluation of assigned 
eSBs. The eSBs selected for the 24th Infantry Division (-) are the 30th 
Mechanized Infantry Brigade (North Carolina), the 48th Mechanized 
Infantry Brigade (Georgia), and the 218th Mechanized Infantry Brigade 
(South Carolina). The eSBs that comprise the 7th ID (-) are the 39th 
Infantry Brigade (Arkansas), the 41st Infantry Brigade (Oregon), and 
the 45th Infantry Brigade (Oklahoma).
Teaming and Partnering of Active Component and Army National Guard 
        units
    Teaming is a program that pairs selected Active Component and Army 
National Guard units for mutual support of operational requirements. 
Teamed units participate in mutually supporting operational training 
events that enhance readiness and complement each unit's individual 
strengths.
    Currently, teaming is limited to divisional units. The teamed 
divisions under III Corps are 1st Cavalry Division with 49th Armored 
Division (Texas), 38th ID (Indiana) with Fort Carson, Colorado and 34th 
ID (Minnesota) with 4th ID. Under XVIII Corps are 3rd ID and 28th ID 
(Pennsylvania), 10th Mountain Division and 29th ID (Virginia), and the 
101st Air Assault Division with the 42nd ID (New York). Under V Corps 
is the 35th ID (Kansas) with Fort Riley, Kansas. Under I Corps is the 
2nd ID with the 40th ID (California).
                   equipping the army national guard
    For National Guard forces to operate and fight alongside their 
Active Component counterparts as a seamless force, they must be 
equipped with either the same equipment as the Active force or highly 
compatible equipment.
    The Army National Guard is dealing with the reality of aging and 
obsolete equipment. Equipping issues are becoming more significant as 
our units are preparing for deployments that require modernized 
equipment in the area of operation.
    Units are training on some equipment that is a substitute for the 
more modernized equipment. For example, units are training with VRC-12 
series radios for missions in which SINCGARS radios are the standard. 
There is a major shortfall in Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) 
equipment to include reconnaissance and decontamination systems. We 
must ensure that our soldiers have the highest level of force 
protection by fielding them with modernized systems.
    Providing the Army National Guard with modernized equipment and 
associated training packages to operate equipment is essential to 
maintaining the capabilities of the Army National Guard. The Army 
National Guard equipment on-hand readiness posture improved in the last 
year, but equipment interoperability with the Active Component remains 
years away. Current programs are slowly modernizing, but the resources 
needed to meet requirements are not keeping pace. A significant 
consequence is equipment on hand continues to age at a faster rate than 
can be offset by modernization--increasing maintenance and operational 
costs. Although the Army National Guard continues to receive new and 
cascaded vehicles to maintain its fleet, the inventory still contains 
old equipment that cannot perform to mission requirement standards.
Artillery
    The modernization of field artillery units to M109A6 Paladin, 
Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) and Highly Mobile Artillery 
Rocket Systems (HIMARS) are significant initiatives. By the end of 
fiscal year 2001, the Army National Guard had fielded 18 M109A6 Paladin 
battalions. Thirteen Army National Guard divisional battalions still 
require Paladin to modernize. Due to a funding shortfall from fiscal 
year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, the MLRS conversion program will be 
delayed. Army National Guard MLRS is programmed to complete conversion 
in fiscal year 2005. The fielding of Highly Mobility Artillery Rocket 
System (HIMARS) to the Army National Guard is tentatively scheduled to 
begin in fiscal year 2005. The Advanced Field Artillery Data System 
fielding began in fiscal year 2001 and completes Army National Guard 
Field Artillery digital communication modernization in fiscal year 
2009.
Bradley Fighting Vehicle
    The Army is now fielding the M2/3A3 version of the Bradley Fighting 
Vehicle (BFV). The desired end-state for the Guard to achieve 
interoperability with the active digitized force is the M2/3A2ODS 
version. The Army National Guard currently has the first production 
models consisting of the M2/3A0, M2/3A2, and some M2/3AODS.
    Congress appropriated $165 million in fiscal years 1998-1999 to 
procure M2A2ODS and M3A2ODS Bradley Fighting Vehicles for the 218th 
enhanced Separate Brigade (eSB), South Carolina Army National Guard. 
This begins to address the need to provide the eSBs with upgraded BFVs, 
and the further cascade M2A2's into Army National Guard divisions. 
Follow on fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 Congressional 
appropriations were provided to complete the fielding of the 30th eSB 
(North Carolina Army National Guard) and the 48th eSB (Georgia Army 
National Guard) in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003.
    The overall Bradley force will still have eight battalion sets 
unfunded to complete the heavy eSBs and the Armored Cavalry Regiment. 
The other seven heavy eSBs are currently equipped with M2A2/M3A2 and 
M2A0/M3A0 systems and M1A1 Abrams tanks. Initiatives are under way to 
upgrade the remaining armor from M1A1 tanks to M1A1HA.
Air Defense
    Two Army National Guard Avenger Battalions were fielded complete 
sets of the Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control System 
(FAADC\2\I) and Sentinel Radar. The remaining seven corps Avenger 
battalions will be fielded with the FAADC\2\I and Sentinel Radar from 
fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007.
    Currently, there is no funding to support fieldings to the Army 
National Guard eSB Batteries or Divisional Battalion. However, the 
263rd Army Air and Missile Defense Command (AAMDC) will field the 
remainder of its Air and Missile Defense Command and Control System 
(AMDCCS) equipment in fiscal year 2002, as a result of the decision 
made by Congress to accelerate fielding by five years.
Digitization
    The Army Battle Command System (ABCS) is the Army's architecture 
for the overall integration of the digital command and control system 
found at all echelons from theater level to the weapons platform. Army 
National Guard units assigned to the III Corps will receive the 
required ABCS applications by fiscal year 2004. However, to make the 
ABCS applications interoperable and functional, units will require a 
digital pipeline. The Enhanced Position Location Reporting System 
(EPLRS) is the network backbone that supports ABCS applications until 
the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) is fielded to the Army National 
Guard. The current Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) does not have 
resources for these requirements.
Communications
    One of the top Army National Guard equipping priorities is to 
replace obsolete Vietnam era VRC-12 series radios with SINCGARS, an 
essential element to Army interoperability. The fielding plan has a 
window from June 2000 through June 2004 for all 15 eSBs, eight National 
Guard Divisions, and all other support units. Currently all 15 eSBs 
have SINCGARS radios. The 29th Division (Virginia) has completed 
SINCGARS fielding as the first of the eight Guard divisions. Two more 
divisions will finish early in 2002. In addition, the echelons above 
division field artillery brigades and Air Defense units that support 
early deploying forces, are receiving SINCGARS SIP/ASIP radios. 
However, if not fully funded, the Army National Guard may have to wait 
until the Joint Tactical Radio System fielding starts in fiscal year 
2007 for the cascade of older SINCGARS from the AC to fully purge the 
VRC-12 series radios from the Army National Guard.
Javelin
    The Javelin is the new infantry anti-armor weapon system that is 
critical for a self-defense capability for light forces and mechanized 
infantry. The current budget addresses 100 percent of the Army National 
Guard Javelin requirements for the eSBs and Special Forces Groups. 
However, fielding to the Army National Guard eSBs and SF Groups will 
not be scheduled to begin until the third quarter of fiscal year 2004, 
with completion expected during the first quarter of fiscal year 2006.
    Fielding for the Army National Guard divisions, separate infantry 
battalions and corps engineer battalions is planned to continue through 
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2008. However, this is dependent on 
the availability of systems. Once the initial quantities run out, the 
fielding of Javelin to those remaining Army National Guard units stops.
Small arms
    The ARNG received 2,105 MK-19 Grenade Machine Guns (GMG) in fiscal 
year 1999, 2,030 in fiscal year 2000 and 308 in fiscal year 2001. We 
are scheduled to receive 1,092 MK-19s during fiscal year 2002 and 700 
during fiscal year 2003. This will complete the fielding to the 
enhanced brigades and divisions.
    The Army National Guard started receiving the M240B Medium Machine 
Gun during the third quarter of fiscal year 2000. Fielding of the eSB 
follows beginning in the second quarter of fiscal year 2001 and ends in 
the second quarter of fiscal year 2002. Remaining Army National Guard 
units will receive the M240B beginning in the third quarter of fiscal 
year 2002.
    The M4 Carbine fielding to Army National Guard eSBs began in the 
third quarter of fiscal year 2000 and continues through the third 
quarter of fiscal year 2002. This leaves an unfunded requirement of 
39,541 M4s for Army National Guard units.
    The Army National Guard is scheduled to receive 31,546 M249 Squad 
Automatic Weapons (SAWs) by the third quarter of fiscal year 2003. This 
will fill 84 percent of requirements. The Army National Guard will 
begin fielding 3,168 M16A4 rifles in the first quarter of fiscal year 
2003 and complete with a final fielding of 23,849 in the fourth quarter 
of fiscal year 2006.
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
    The Army National Guard is short Night Vision Goggles for both air 
and ground units. The current inventory represents only 33 percent of 
the Army National Guard requirement for NVGs. This shortage adversely 
impacts a unit's ability to train for and conduct night operations. The 
older PVS-5 NVGs, used as substitutes for the PVS-7Bs NVGs, are 
inadequate and limit the unit's ability to maneuver under the cover of 
darkness with the same agility as PVS-7B equipped units.
    The AN/PVS-14 Monocular fielding was completed in November 2000. 
Fielding of the AN/PVS-7D began in the third quarter of fiscal year 
2000 to the eSBs, and will continue through the end of fiscal year 
2002. Fielding to Guard divisions will begin after 2002.
Protective Masks
    Fielding of new and cascaded M40 Protective Masks, M42 Protective 
Masks, and M41 Protective Mask Test Sets has been completed. 
Additionally, the M42 is being upgraded to the M42A2.
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)
    Fielding to modernize the current 2-ton and 5-ton fleets will not 
be completed until fiscal year 2024. Each time funding for this program 
is decreased, the fielding timelines are extended for Army National 
Guard units. Units continue to use cascaded vehicles coming from the AC 
that in many cases increase the technology gap rather than close it. 
Since the Army decision to field the FMTV, the Army National Guard has 
received less than 1 percent of the required 5-ton vehicles and less 
than 2 percent of the required 2-ton vehicles of the new series. The 
remaining 97 percent are the older models.
    The Army National Guard completed the fielding of 168 FMTVs to 
field artillery, transportation and quartermaster units in fiscal year 
1999. The second phase of fielding to the Army National Guard is 
scheduled to start in fiscal year 2001 and conclude in fiscal year 
2003. The third phase will begin after fiscal year 2003 and continue 
through fiscal year 2008. The Army National Guard will receive an 
additional 2,030 FMTVs for fielding to First Digitized Corps Army 
National Guard units. Other Procurement Army (OPA1) is the source of 
funding for the second phase of FMTV fielding.
    The Army National Guard is programmed to receive 1,034 M1078 Light 
Medium Tactical Vehicles (LMTVs) to modernize high priority units. The 
Army National Guard received the initial fielding of 380 LMTVs during 
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2001.
Generators
    The Army National Guard has less than 60 percent of its required 
tactical power generation equipment and equipment on-hand is more than 
20 years old. The majority of this shortfall lies in the smaller 3 KW 
and 5 KW models.
    Current fielding of the newer models of the tactical quiet 
generator (TQG) addresses Force Package 2 unit fieldings of 3 KW 
generators. The 5-60 KW TQG fielding through fiscal year 2007 will 
finish Force Package 3. Fielding of Force Package 4 units will start in 
fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009. The Army National Guard needs to 
upgrade and improve its aging inventory of generators and accelerate 
the fielding of TQG to more units within the Army National Guard.
AH-1 ``COBRA'' and UH-1 ``HUEY'' Retirements
    Aviation modernization remains among one of the highest priorities 
for the Army National Guard. It has become critical because of the 
Army's expedited retirement programs for the Vietnam-era AH-1 and UH-1 
helicopters. Even after receiving cascading aircraft from the AC and 
delivery of previously funded aircraft, the Army National Guard will 
still be short more than 200 UH-60 Blackhawks.
    All AH-1s were retired at the end of fiscal year 2001; however, the 
modernized AH-64s and RAH-66s to replace them are not available. To 
overcome this shortfall and to provide a means to maintain minimum 
readiness in the units affected, the Army has approved the use of OH-
58A/C scout aircraft as a ``bridge'' over the modernization gap. These 
units will have minimal combat capability during this period.
    The following units are affected: six Divisional Attack Battalions, 
Air Troops in eight Divisional Cavalry Squadrons, and two Attack 
Companies in the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment's Air Squadron. 
Additional AH-64A replacement aircraft are expected to begin cascading 
from the active Army in fiscal year 2002, but the RAH-66s for the ACR 
and Divisional Cavalry units will not be available prior to 2011.
    All UH-1s must retire by the end of fiscal year 2004. The Army 
National Guard has already begun to reduce the on-hand inventory. This 
accelerated retirement schedule, combined with the continued grounding 
of many of the UH-1s due to the mast replacements, will present a 
substantial challenge to the Army National Guard for both unit and 
aircrew readiness. Currently, from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 
2007, the Army National Guard will retire more than 700 UH-1s, while 
scheduled to receive less than 170 UH-60 replacements during the same 
period. To address this problem, the Army and the Army National Guard 
have identified a critical need to increase the rate of UH-60 
procurements from the current schedule of 10 per year to about 30 per 
year. However, these increases are currently unfunded.
UH-60 Air Ambulance ``BlackHawk''
    Development of modernized versions of the Army's MEDEVAC Air 
Ambulance helicopters has been a National Guard development priority 
for more than seven years. Currently, eleven of the Army National 
Guard's fifteen Air Ambulance companies have been modernized. The Army 
National Guard also has one Air Ambulance Detachment with four UH-60Q 
Blackhawks. Only four of the companies are resourced at 100 percent (15 
UH-60s). The remaining four companies are equipped with UH-1 Iroquois, 
which will be retired from service by fiscal year 2004. This reflects 
an overall shortfall of approximately 82 UH-60s.
    An Army National Guard initiative for testing several variant 
prototype aero-medical platforms, using Tennessee Army National Guard 
aircraft, has resulted in Army approval of UH-60Q and HH-60L Air 
Ambulance designs for future requirements. There is now a formal Army 
program to eventually convert or procure these advanced UH-60Q and HH-
60L designs for all Army and Army National Guard Air Ambulance units.
CH-47D Cargo Helicopters
    The Cargo Helicopter CH-47D is programmed for modification to the 
``F'' model. This improvement includes upgraded engines, drive train, 
and avionics. The Army program to upgrade current cargo helicopters to 
a fully modernized CH-47F configuration remains under funded. This will 
result in about two-thirds of the Army National Guard cargo fleet being 
modernized CH-47Fs, while the remaining one-third of the Army National 
Guard structure, plus Army training and float aircraft, remain as 
unmodified CH-47Ds. Because the Future Transport Rotorcraft (FTR) is 
now unlikely to be available for an extended period, the Army National 
Guard remains hopeful that the CH-47F program will eventually be 
extended to a full procurement objective of 431, in order to convert 
all Army CH-47Ds to the CH-47F configuration.
Summary
    The Army National Guard remains an integral part of the Army's 
force structure. It has the majority of the artillery force and CS/CSS 
infrastructure. The enhanced separate brigades have reached, or are 
soon programmed to reach, the same modernization level as their Active 
Component counterparts. The Army National Guard has a traditional role 
in Homeland Security and overseas theater engagement missions, and 
supporting disaster relief. Despite the efforts of a number of 
programs, a significant lag will remain for several years in replacing 
the Army National Guard's overage tactical wheeled vehicle fleet, 
upgrading its tactical communication systems, and filling other 
equipment shortages that are most useful in Homeland Security and 
overseas mission support. Current programmed procurement through fiscal 
year 2007 will not fill the existing shortages nor replace current 
obsolete equipment.
                         resources to readiness
    The resourcing goal of the Army National Guard is to secure 
adequate funding, enabling the organization to meet all statutory and 
critical funding requirements. The Army National Guard readiness goal 
is to provide trained and deployable forces for The Army and Commanders 
in Chief (CINCs), thus the phrase ``resources to readiness.'' Our 
intent is to improve our readiness through funding parity within each 
Force package for all Army Components.
Resourcing Priorities
    By prioritizing limited resources, our ``First to Deploy'' forces 
receive the highest funding in order to have the capability to meet the 
CINC's requirements. This resourcing strategy ensures our early 
deploying units have the funds, people and equipment necessary to meet 
the Defense Planning Guidance deployment criteria, and greatly enhances 
overall readiness. Lower priority units, such as our eight combat 
divisions, are funded to meet baseline readiness goals at the 
individual, crew and squad levels of training.
    Prioritization of resources, in terms of personnel assessment, 
equipment procurement, maintenance, training, and full-time support 
personnel support are the factors that determine readiness and 
capability across our force. The relatively new Army National Guard 
Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (CSTs) sustain 
appropriate levels of readiness to meet mission requirements. The 
number of units within the CST community will continue to increase 
based on National Defense requirements. Other high priority/early 
deploying units recently experienced a temporary decline of 3.9 percent 
in readiness due to structure additions. Focused resource management 
will cause these units to achieve readiness goals. Our enhanced 
Separate Brigades (eSBs) experienced an increase of 4.9 percent in 
readiness over the past 12 months. The eight divisions decreased 3.6 
percent due primarily to personnel training shortfalls.
    While adequate OPTEMPO funding is crucial to the continued 
readiness of our force, it is impossible to underestimate the impact of 
full-time manning shortages on the overall readiness of the ARNG. 
Military Technicians are integral to improved equipment readiness; 
Active Guard and Reserve soldiers in units are key to training and unit 
management. Full-time manning is our highest priority for improved Army 
National Guard readiness.
Budget Appropriations
    Three appropriations apply directly to the Army National Guard: 
National Guard Personnel, Army (NGPA), Operations and Maintenance, Army 
National Guard (OMNG), and Military Construction, Army National Guard 
(MCNG). The Army National Guard is also funded by individual states for 
state-related functions. These three appropriations fund specific 
requirements as defined in congressional appropriation language, but 
should not be confused with the total costs of operations. Some support 
costs, including most equipment acquisition, are provided through other 
appropriations. The fiscal year 2002 appropriated funds for the Army 
National Guard is $8.2 billion, which represents approximately 10.1 
percent of the Army's $81.1 billion budget.
    The fiscal year 2003 President's Budget seeks to fund the steadily 
increasing pace and variety of operations. These rapidly occurring 
events include tremendous strides in Active Component Army--Army 
National Guard integration, ongoing support to peacekeeping efforts in 
the Balkans, and the recent expanding role in Homeland Security.

                      ARMY NATIONAL GUARD RESOURCES
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year--
                                                   ---------------------
                                                       2002    2003 (PB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel.........................................      4,044      5,131
Operations/Maintenance............................      3,734      4,137
Military Construction.............................        401        102
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contingency Operations
    The Army National Guard is a stakeholder in The Army's 
transformation. We continue to be called upon to provide an increasing 
number of soldiers and units each year to support the Army's role in 
Contingency Operations (CONOPS). Army National Guard soldiers are 
supporting Contingency Operations in Bosnia, Kosovo and Southwest Asia. 
Funds for these operations were transferred to the Army from the 
Overseas Contingency Operation Transfer Fund (OCTOF) during the fiscal 
year 2003 Program Decision Cycle.
    The OCOTF funds were transferred to the Army in fiscal year 2002 
and distributed in the out-years. The Bosnia, Kosovo and Southwest 
operations missions have been ongoing for a few years and are 
considered stabilized. Consequently, the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense directed the OCOTF funds be transferred to the Services' 
appropriations. ARNG support for these operations has provided a team 
effort for The Army in support of national defense. Deploying ARNG 
soldiers are conducting pre-mobilization training during Annual 
Training and Inactive Duty. Additional training days (incremental 
costs) for these deployments were funded from the OCOTF in fiscal years 
2000 and 2001. The ARNG is scheduled to continue to support these 
missions and will work closely with The Army to ensure that incremental 
costs are reprogrammed to train, equip and deploy these soldiers as an 
Army of One.
    The ARNG will command the Task Force in Bosnia for the 
Stabilization Force 12 though 15 planned rotations. The projected 
deployment force structure figures are still being debated based on the 
ARNG and Active Component mix.
    While deployed, Army National Guard soldiers are mobilized in a 
federal status and paid from the active duty military pay accounts. 
Incremental military pay funding is required for the additional 
soldiers that must round out State Headquarters, State Area Commands 
(STARCs) and units in an Active Duty Special Work (ADSW) status to 
support the unit deployment. The majority of states deploying are 
manned full-time--between 40 to 60 percent--to support normal state 
training. Incremental OCOTF National Guard Pay and Allowances (NGPA) 
funding received in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 is listed 
below.

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund (OCOTF)

                                                                Millions

National Guard Pay and Allowances (NGPA):
    Fiscal year 2000..............................................   $14
    Fiscal year 2001..............................................  56.1
    Fiscal year 2002..............................................\1\ 60

\1\ Estimate based on known missions, which must be programmed and 
funded by the Army.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   sustaining the army national guard
    Sustainment programs directly support readiness and training and 
continue to be Defense and Army priorities. Adequate resourcing--both 
funding and full-time manning--is key to quality training and to both 
near-term and long-term readiness. Enablers such as the redistribution 
of major end items (Class VII), logistics support of the training 
strategy, depot maintenance, Command Logistics Review Team (CLRT) 
assistance visits, fielding of vital logistics automation systems, 
Single Stock Fund (SSF), and clothing initiatives form the backbone for 
continued sustainment support for fiscal year 2002. Sustainment overall 
is adequately resourced in fiscal year 2002 and the logistics community 
has set goals to effectively use these resources to sustain existing 
logistical operations while planning for future challenges.
Redistribution of Major End Items
    The Army National Guard equipment on-hand readiness posture 
improved this past year, but complete equipment commonality with the 
Active Component is years away. The Army National Guard boosts 
equipment readiness by redistributing assets throughout the states. New 
fieldings, displaced equipment and repair programs are vital to Army 
National Guard modernization. Even with these programs, there remains a 
modernization gap between the active Army and the Army National Guard. 
Service life extension programs will be critical necessities for the 
Army National Guard as the Army moves toward the Objective Force.
Logistics Support of the Training Strategy
    The Army National Guard logistics community is a critical player in 
maintaining the training strategy by ensuring equipment readiness. 
Equipment readiness is supported with Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO) 
funding. The Army National Guard goal is to resource all combat units 
at the platoon level and other units to the level organized. The fiscal 
year 2002 funding provides for platoon training (176 miles) of enhanced 
separate brigades and individual/crew/squad (ICS--100 miles) of Army 
National Guard divisions. OPTEMPO provides the resources for soldier 
training support, repair parts, fuel, and organizational clothing and 
individual equipment--all of which are critical elements of the Army 
National Guard training plan. OPTEMPO funding must keep pace with the 
increasing requirements of maintaining the legacy equipment that 
continues to reside in the Army National Guard. These older systems 
drive up operating costs as they move beyond the end of their 
programmed life. The Army National Guard has established the Advanced 
Turbine Engine Army Maintenance (ATEAM) program that overhauls AGT 1500 
tank engines to approved depot level standards. This program will 
continue to produce tank engines in fiscal year 2003 to support Army 
National Guard CTC rotations and reduce maintenance downtime for the M1 
Abrams tank fleet.
Depot Maintenance
    The depot maintenance program continues to be an integral part of 
Army National Guard sustainment. Equipment qualifying for depot repair 
increases by 24 percent during fiscal year 2003 and is attributable 
primarily to an increase in Army National Guard aviation modernization 
programs and rebuild of the Army National Guard's aged tactical wheeled 
vehicle fleet. The fiscal year 2003 program will allow the Army 
National Guard to execute depot maintenance on the following key 
programs by quantity: six M88A1 tank recovery vehicles, 24 AVLB Combat 
Bridging Systems through the Anniston Army Depot, 56 HEMTT Series of 
Vehicles, nine M198 155 mm Towed Howitzers, and one M102 105 mm Towed 
Howitzers.
    The Army National Guard's five Readiness Sustainment Maintenance 
Sites (RSMS) will continue to be leveraged to repair trucks, trailers, 
and electronic equipment. Four of the sites specialize in refurbishing 
HMMWVs, five-ton cargo trucks, tractors, wreckers, HEMTTs, 10-ton 
tractors, trailers that are pulled by a fifth wheel, and bulldozers. 
The fifth site repairs night vision devices and generators.
    The RSMS sites are located in Kansas, Mississippi, Texas, Maine, 
and Oregon. All five sites performed work for the Army National Guard 
before being selected as an RSMS.
Single Stock Fund (SSF) Initiative
    The Army National Guard is participating in the Single Stock Fund 
(SSF) initiative. This is a Department of the Army business process 
engineering change to improve and streamline the Army's logistics and 
financial processes for primarily Class IX repair parts. The 
implementation of SSF has progressed through Milestones 1 and 2. 
Milestone 3, which will capitalize the unit authorized stockage list 
(ASL) into the Army Working Capital Fund, is scheduled for completion 
in June 2003.
    Implementing SSF, will be a major cultural and operational change 
for the Army National Guard. It will generate numerous procedural and 
systemic changes. Some of the Army National Guard processes currently 
under revision to accomplish SSF transition include fielding a software 
program to support control of direct funding at unit level and credit 
management assistance to support increased unit buying power. The Army 
National Guard directorate staff continues to work closely with 
Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, other Major Area 
Commands, and the states to facilitate a smooth transition to SSF.
Soldier Support
    The ARNG continues to struggle to provide adequate protective 
clothing to our soldiers in all modes of operations. Many National 
Guard soldiers have been activated since September 11 and are standing 
duty in places not imagined in the recent past. Soldiers are guarding 
places such as bridges, nuclear power plants, and other sensitive 
assets in the United States. They are also protecting our borders 
through enhanced security at checkpoints. Soldiers serving in lower 
priority units who have not been fielded with cold weather clothing 
perform much of this duty. Since much of the duty is performed in 
inclement zones, such equipment has become essential. Much has been 
accomplished to meet the challenge, but far more remains to be done.
Army National Guard Safety Program
    The foundation of the Army National Guard's Safety Program can be 
found in the four pillars of safety--leadership, discipline, standards 
and risk management.
            Risk Management
    Every day, the Army National Guard responds to the nation's needs. 
Applying solid risk management principles is critical to protecting our 
soldiers as they accomplish their missions. All Army National Guard 
personnel must be trained in the risk management process and use it as 
a primary tool in all mission planning. Formalized in Army doctrine, 
integrated in the safety program, risk management is the principal 
accident prevention process.
            Safety Training
    Effective training is key to the prevention of accidents and 
injuries. In fiscal year 2001, the Army National Guard provided more 
than 500 interactive Explosive Safety training packets (CD-ROMs) to 
state safety offices. Safety training videos for Hazard Communication, 
Fall Protection, and Blood-borne Pathogens are available to Army 
National Guard units through their respective State Safety and 
Occupational Health Offices. The use of distance learning and automated 
technology formats are being analyzed and proposed as viable training 
to support requirements at the local level.
            Ground Accidents
    The Army National Guard experienced 20 Class A, and four Class B 
ground accidents in fiscal year 2001. This is an increase of three 
Class A accidents and a decrease of one Class B accident compared to 
fiscal year 2000. These accidents resulted in the deaths of 18 Army 
National Guard soldiers and two civilians. Fourteen deaths occurred in 
Privately Owned Vehicle accidents, and two in Army Motor Vehicle 
accidents. Four deaths resulted from personal injuries. Excessive 
speed, fatigue, failure to wear seatbelts and failure to follow 
procedures all contributed to these accidents in some manner. The Army 
National Guard will continue to promote education, awareness and 
countermeasures to combat future accidents.
            Aviation Safety
    Aviation accident prevention is the priority in the Army National 
Guard Aviation and Safety Division. Every aviation maintenance action 
and operational program pivots on safe flying. Army National Guard 
Aviation Safety provides proactive advisement by applying knowledge 
from lessons learned, tracking trends, providing training, and most 
importantly by visiting units, facilities and operations. Combining 
these methods with proven Risk Management Processes provides for a 
successful countermeasure program.
    Each commander and unit safety personnel have been given a 
standardized assessment tool called the Aviation Support Activity 
Accident Prevention Survey (ASAAPS). The ASAAPS is a survey tool that 
can help prevent accidents and the repeating accidents that others in 
the military and the private sector have experienced.
                    training the army national guard
    The Army National Guard's fully integrated strategy for training 
individuals, leaders and units in live, virtual and constructive 
environments ensures we are prepared to meet wartime deployment 
readiness requirements and Homeland Security missions.
Training Sites and Centers
            Combat Training Centers
    The Army National Guard participates in all of the Army's Combat 
Training Centers (CTC); the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, 
California; the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), Fort Polk, 
Louisiana; the Combat Maneuver Training Center (CMTC), Hohenfels, 
Germany; and the Battle Command Training Program (BCTP), Fort 
Leavenworth, Kansas. The Brigade Command and Battle Staff Training 
(BCBST) Program is a subset of BCTP.
    The Army CTC Program is divided into live simulation (NTC, JRTC, 
and CMTC) and constructive simulation (BCTP and BCBST). The Army 
National Guard CTC Program involves the scheduling of Army National 
Guard units to conduct training at the CTCs in the following 
capacities: Blue (Friendly) Force (BLUFOR) rotational units, Opposing 
Forces (OPFOR) augmentation units, and other types of support based on 
the needs of the CTCs.
            National Training Center (NTC)
    The OPFOR at the NTC has changed over the years to reflect the 
opposition U.S. Forces may encounter when forward deployed. Opposing 
forces may be encountered throughout the entire area of operations of 
the NTC. This includes the Aerial Port of Debarkation (APOD) at 
Southern California Logistics Airport, the railhead at Yermo, Fort 
Irwin Military City and any area between. Units encounter Civilians on 
the Battlefield (COB), media role players, and organized OPFOR up to 
regimental sized. A high level of rigor is achieved at the NTC through 
the capabilities of the OPFOR and provides U.S. forces with the 
toughest training available.
    The 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) provides soldiers and 
equipment for the NTC OPFOR. Army National Guard units from Arizona, 
Nevada and Montana are assigned to the regiment to augment these active 
duty soldiers. The Army National Guard combat arms units that conduct 
OPFOR augmentation rotations at NTC benefit from the high OPTEMPO of 
the 11th ACR and receive excellent force-on-force training during the 
rotation.
            Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC)
    The Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) located at Fort Polk, 
Louisiana, hosts light infantry and special operations forces from all 
components of the armed forces. The Army National Guard receives one 
brigade size rotation each year. These rotations are all allocated to 
the seven light infantry enhanced Separate Brigades (eSBs). The 45th 
eSB (Oklahoma) is scheduled to attend in fiscal year 2002 and the 53rd 
eSB (Florida) is scheduled to participate in fiscal year 2003. The Army 
National Guard receives and allocates two rotations annually. These 
rotations are allocated to the eSBs based on the unit's relative 
calendar proximity to scheduled JRTC rotations. Training opportunities 
exist for Combat Arms and Combat Service and Support units to augment 
BLUFOR and OPFOR units.
    Army National Guard soldiers from New York, Connecticut, 
Massachusetts, South Dakota, Texas and Alabama combined to form 
Aviation Task Force Liberty Bell. These Army National Guard aircrews, 
support personnel and Air Traffic Service personnel completed the Army 
National Guard fiscal year 2001 rotation at the Joint Readiness 
Training Center (JRTC) in Fort Polk, Louisiana. The Task Force deployed 
with 26 helicopters, including UH-60s and CH-47s, plus ground support 
equipment.
            Battle Command Training Program (BCTP)
    The BCTP is the Army's capstone Combat Training Center. It provides 
command and battle staff training for brigade, division and corps 
commanders, their staffs, major subordinate commanders and staffs, and 
supporting special operating forces. All National Guard brigades and 
divisions will participate in BCTP or BCBST rotations both as stand-
alone exercises and in support of Active Component divisions and Corps.
    During fiscal year 2001 the Army National Guard executed three 
stand alone BCTPs, 12 BCBSTs and supported eight Active Component 
exercises with Field Artillery, Combat Support and Combat Service 
Support brigades, battalions and companies.
    During fiscal year 2002, 14 Army National Guard brigades will 
conduct BCBST rotations. Two Army National Guard divisions will conduct 
BCTP rotations, ten Field Artillery brigades and many CSS units will 
also participate in Active Component, BCTP rotations.
            National Guard Professional Education Center
    The LaVern E. Weber National Guard Professional Education Center 
(PEC) is the power projection platform for training the National 
Guard's full-time support force. Lieutenant General LaVern E. Weber's 
vision was to create a facility to train the full-time support force of 
the National Guard. To accomplish that vision, PEC is home to 5 
separate training centers, which include the Human Resource and 
Readiness Training Center, the Quality Training Center, the Logistics 
Training Center, the Strength Maintenance Training Center, and the 
Marksmanship Training Center.
    During fiscal year 2001, these 5 training centers trained nearly 
8,000 personnel through residence courses, distributed learning, and 
mobile training teams. The Professional Education Center will establish 
an Information Technology Training Center in fiscal year 2002 to keep 
pace with the ever changing and increasing technological needs of the 
National Guard.
Distributed Learning
    Making training locally available generates more training 
opportunities. It reduces the time a soldier is away from his home 
station, eliminates excess travel time and per diem costs, and is 
accomplished in less time. However, traditional resident training will 
remain the appropriate method for many types of training, including 
initial entry, initial OES/NCOES leadership and equipment-intensive 
training.
    The goal of Distributed Learning (DL) in the Army National Guard is 
to improve readiness by providing local access to training and 
education--anytime, anywhere. Supporting this goal, the Distributed 
Training Technologies Project (DTTP) was formed to meet three missions: 
(1) Improve readiness, (2) Improve command, control and communications, 
and (3) Explore the concept of shared use; making the classrooms 
available on a space available--reimbursable basis.
    The strategy to achieve these missions is based on developing and 
synchronizing five essential components: hardware (network and 
classrooms), courseware, staff and faculty training, support services, 
and business operations.
            Courseware
    To meet the Army and ARNG's Military Occupational Skill 
Qualification (MOSQ) needs, the Army Training and Doctrine Command 
(TRADOC) is redesigning 525 MOSQ courses over a 12-year period ending 
in fiscal year 2010. The ARNG Professional Education Center is 
redesigning 70 ARNG functional courses and National Guard unique 
courseware to improve individual sustainment and collective task 
training.
            Hardware (Network and Classrooms)
    Critical to the success of Distributed Learning is GUARDNET XXI, a 
robust and dynamic telecommunication infrastructure that combines 
voice, video, and data requirements. GUARDNET XXI connects the National 
Guard Bureau with the state and territorial State Area Commands 
(STARCs). Using this infrastructure, the National Guard Distributive 
Training Technology Project (DTTP) expands training access through the 
installation of DL-capable classrooms at Army National Guard training 
sites, armories, and surrounding communities. To date, 291 classrooms 
of a planned 481 have been installed nationwide.
            Business Operations
    Because many DL classroom facilities, and in particular, the DTTP 
classrooms, are designed for multi-use operations, the overall 
management and administration of the venues is particularly important.
    Guidance is being provided to the state's senior leadership to 
assist them in fostering teaming relationships with other public/
private/state/federal agencies aimed at leveraging resources, 
information, and strategic partnerships. DTTP's shared use initiative 
promises significant collaboration between government and non-
governmental organizations, and uses financial, contractual, marketing, 
and consultative support resources. Appropriate business practices 
associated with classroom use by non-military organizations and 
individuals will become standard across the DTTP system.
The Army School System (TASS) Transition
    The Army School System (TASS) is a multi-component organization of 
TRADOC, the Army National Guard, and the U.S. Army Reserve schools 
organized to deliver Military Occupation Skills Qualification (MOSQ) 
Reclassification, Noncommissioned Officer Education System, Officer 
Education System, and functional courses. TRADOC, Army National Guard, 
and USAR have separate areas of responsibility for specific TASS 
missions. However, the Army National Guard contributes facilities, 
equipment, and instructors to support courses conducted by the other 
components under Cross Component Resource (CCR) memorandums of 
agreement.
    The future success of TASS will depend heavily upon the 
implementation of DL products, refinement and development of new 
innovative programs of instruction, and a multi-component schoolhouse 
that supports the TRADOC Transformation. Army National Guard and USAR 
instructional, training development and budget management staffs are 
combining efforts to build a future TRADOC that delivers seamless 
training to standard for institutional training to the Army.
Funding of New AND Displaced Equipment Training in Fiscal Year 2001
    A total of $7.656 million was funded and distributed to the Army 
National Guard to support new and displaced equipment. These funds 
supported a total of 27 system fieldings for six major Combat Systems, 
six major Combat Support/Service Support Systems and 15 other systems.
    In fiscal year 2002, validated new equipment training and displaced 
equipment training funding requirements totaled $10.8 million. However, 
only $2.1 million of $8.4 million in critical requirements are funded, 
leaving a $6.3 million Unfunded Requirement (UFR) as validated by the 
Department of the Army.
    The UFR will adversely affect preparation for the First Digitized 
Corps (FDC) exercise and the ability of the Army National Guard to 
demonstrate digitization capability. Without adequate funding for 
required new equipment training and displaced equipment training, many 
states will not be able to receive critical equipment.
Army National Guard Distributed Battle Simulation Program
    The Army National Guard has a congressional mandate to expand the 
use of simulations, simulators and advanced training technologies in 
order to increase training opportunities for members and units and 
establish a program to minimize post-mobilization training time 
required for combat units. The challenges for the Army National Guard 
are to develop mechanisms and processes that efficiently and 
effectively integrate and synchronize individual and collective 
training requirements; provide infrastructure and expertise to plan and 
execute home station training; provide methodologies to incorporate 
Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations (TADSS) into live, 
virtual, and constructive training environments; and contribute to 
improved readiness.
    To satisfy these requirements and address readiness and training 
gaps, the Army National Guard has developed the Distributed Battle 
Simulation Program (DBSP). The DBSP mirrors the Active Component Battle 
Simulation program for conditions of Army National Guard training 
environments by providing training infrastructure and TADSS 
integration. The Army National Guard intent is to continue the 
internally funded managed growth of the program in fiscal year 2002 and 
fiscal year 2003 and to work to gain additional Army resources in the 
out years.
Army National Guard Aviation Training Sites (AATS)
    The Army National Guard's 4 Aviation Training Sites are designated 
as national training assets for the Army. The Eastern Army National 
Guard Aviation Training Site (EAATS) is located at Fort Indiantown Gap, 
Pennsylvania. The Western Army National Guard Aviation Training Site 
(WAATS) is located at Silver Bell Army Heliport in Marana, Arizona. The 
High Altitude Aviation Training Site (HAATS) is located in Gypsum, 
Colorado. Both the EAATS and WAATS are regional simulation sites, 
offering simulation support to the Army in UH-1H, UH-60, CH-47D, and 
AH-64 helicopters.
Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer
    The Army National Guard has developed an Aviation Reconfigurable 
Manned Simulator (ARMS) as a cost-effective solution to enhance flying 
safety and readiness. This system was developed with the mutual 
cooperation and support of the U.S. Army Aviation Center (USAAVNC) and 
the Army's Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM). 
It can be quickly reconfigured to each of the rotary wing airframes 
flown in the Army. The device is a collective training simulator that 
provides for a 360-degree virtual environment, a helmet mounted display 
system, accurate cockpit housing, realistic controls and essential 
panels, and tactile-interactive cockpit panels. Each ARMS provides 
training in individual and crew tasks, and focuses on collective, 
combined arms and joint service operations.
Accelerated Officer Candidate School (OCS) Program
    The Army National Guard initiated a very successful accelerated 
Officer Candidate School (OCS) Program in 1996. This accelerated 
program cuts 11 months off the traditional OCS course duration--eight 
weeks full-time versus 13 months part-time. This is particularly 
beneficial to states experiencing large company-grade officer 
vacancies.
    The NGB has been programming about 80 students per year for the 
last five years. The class size increased to 200 students in fiscal 
year 2001 due to forecasted training requirements submitted by the 
states, and has been increased to 400 students per year for fiscal year 
2002 and beyond.
    The shortage of company grade officers continues to be a challenge 
across The Army. In an attempt to decrease company grade officer 
losses, the Army National Guard submitted proposed legislation to the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA 
M&RA) under the Unified Legislation and Budgeting (ULB) process in 
April 2000 that will offer a student loan repayment program incentive 
for company grade officers. The Army National Guard is also exploring 
the feasibility of submitting legislation to offer bonuses for company 
grade officers that agree to extend their service commitment.
    The Army National Guard supports the Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Personnel's (DCSPER's) initiative for Selective Retention Boards that 
will allow selected captains and majors to be retained so that they may 
reach 20 years of active service. The Army National Guard also supports 
the DCSPER's initiative to select captains for promotion who do not 
possess a baccalaureate degree or military education certification. The 
actual promotion to the next higher grade will become effective once 
the individual completes the required civilian or military education.
Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) Training
    The Army National Guard Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) 
Program enters its third year. At least five soldiers from every 
battalion in the ARNG received training in AT/FP measures.
    The ARNG Directorate provided training on how to write and 
formalize state level AT/FP plans and has been able to validate 
requirements in the Program Objective Memorandum (POM). Additionally, 
the ARNG has been instrumental in the rewrite of Army Regulation 525-
13, the Army's AT/FP guide.
    The ARNG has coordinated with the Department of the Army in 
identifying installations that require separate AT/FP plans and are 
developing a timeline for providing assistance to the states and 
installations.
                         quality installations
    The Army National Guard is unmistakably a community-based 
organization that has more the 3,000 Army National Guard Readiness 
Centers in some 2,700 communities within the 50 states, three 
territories and the District of Columbia. We also give federal support 
to the operations and maintenance of over 27,000 training, aviation and 
logistical facilities throughout the nation. The citizens of each 
community are the same guardsmen that protect us. With the quality of 
many of our facilities rated C-4, (mission performance is significantly 
impaired), it makes the Army National Guard's mission in global 
security, emergency response and giving local support to the 
communities more of a challenge each year.
Facilities Overview and management
    The current projection for fiscal year 2003 in Real Property 
Maintenance funding, just to sustain our facilities, will be in the 
neighborhood of $350 million. Military construction (MILCON) funding is 
estimated to only recapitalize National Guard facilities on a 341-year 
cycle. This is far short of the Army's 67-year goal. The Army National 
Guard's cost to improve all of its existing facilities to C-1 is $9 
billion.
    The Army National Guard's budget request was $59 million for 
military construction in fiscal year 2001. Congress appropriated $285 
million, which increased our construction program in fiscal year 2001 
from 28 to 50 projects. These funds included construction in support of 
the Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil Support Teams; 14 projects for 
Phase I of the Army National Division Redesign Study (ADRS); and 32 
other projects in support of the Army Facility Strategy.
    The Army National Guard Military Construction budget request for 
fiscal year 2003 outlines $100.7 million for 11 major construction 
projects, planning and design, and unspecified minor construction. The 
required increase in the budget request is due to the support of the 
Army National Guard Division Redesign Study.
    Although the Army National Guard received a proportional share of 
Army's military construction dollars, the Army National Guard still has 
an unfinanced requirement of $580 million for fiscal year 2003. If our 
unfinanced requirements were equal to our budget request, we would be 
able to fund over 50 additional construction projects.
    As part of the post-Cold War strategy of making the service 
``light'' enough to move thousands of troops anywhere in the world in a 
matter of days, the Chief of Staff of the Army directed that the Army 
reorganize a medium force between the existing ``light divisions, and 
``heavy'' division. Called the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), it 
is programmed as an Army National Guard Brigade currently scheduled for 
stationing in Pennsylvania. About $100 million of military construction 
is currently programmed to support the reorganization of the 
Pennsylvania Army National Guard.
    The IBCT is an example of how we are working with the Army to 
reshape the way we do business. The Army National Guard continues to 
work toward revamping facilities to meet the needs of evolving missions 
such as Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil Support Teams, the Army 
National Guard Division Redesign and the Interim Brigade Combat Team. 
Additionally, we are actively engaged in providing anti-terrorism force 
protection for all of our citizen soldiers. To fully implement all of 
these changes the Army National Guard's construction focus in fiscal 
year 2003 will be adapting and building facilities to meet these new 
requirements.
            The Real Property Development Plan (RPDP)
    The Real Property Development Plan (RPDP) Initiative gives the 
Department of the Army a more accurate view of the quality and quantity 
of facilities the Army National Guard needs to successfully complete 
its missions.
            A Planning Resource for Infrastructure Development 
                    Evaluation (PRIDE)
    PRIDE, a data base management tool, has been implemented by all 50 
states and three territories. This tool provides the states and the NGB 
with excellent data management and analysis for decision support in the 
infrastructure community.
            Installations Status Report--Infrastructure (ISR I) Program
    Installations Status Report (Infrastructure) Program (ISR I) 
provides conditions and costs associated with the Army National Guard 
infrastructure. It gives the Army National Guard concrete justification 
to explain current funding levels for sustainment, repair, maintenance 
requirements, predict future major construction funding requirements 
and provides Congress information to justify increasing appropriations.
    In fiscal year 2001, the results of the Installation Status Report 
measured a new military construction requirement of $10.8 billion for 
the Army National Guard. In addition, a $9 billion repair backlog 
resulting from years of under-funding was also substantiated. 
Facilities sustainment for fiscal year 2001 was funded at about $224.4 
million. ISR shows that the true requirement is $810 million, which 
means facilities continue to deteriorate and the repair backlog 
continues to increase.
Significant Real Estate Acquisitions
    The constrained MILCON environment also makes it imperative that 
the Army National Guard use all resources available to seek out, plan 
for, and design facilities with our future missions in mind.
            Barbers Point, Hawaii
    The Army acquired a portion of the former Navy Barbers Point, 
Hawaii. This has proved a tremendous factor in resolving shortfalls in 
the stationing of units and equipment in the Hawaii Army National 
Guard. This 150-acre acquisition allows the Hawaii Army National Guard 
to consolidate four dislocated 29th Infantry Brigade units and a 
maintenance operation. The new location will reduce soldier travel time 
and provide facilities to conduct mission essential operations.
            Ravenna, Ohio
    Acquisition of a portion of the former Ravenna Army Ammunition 
Plant by the Ohio Army National Guard has greatly resolved shortfalls 
in maneuver training area to battalion level. This 16,164-acre 
acquisition will facilitate Armor, Mechanized Infantry and Engineer 
unit training
            Minden, Louisiana
    The Louisiana Army National Guard's acquisition of a portion of the 
former Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant has greatly resolved shortfalls 
in training area availability. This 12,896-acre acquisition will 
facilitate Transportation, Dismounted Infantry and Engineer unit 
training.
            Twin Cities, Minnesota
    An acquisition that will facilitate Mechanized Infantry Battalion, 
Signal Corps and Military Police unit training, is the purchase of 
1,245-acres of the former Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant. The 
Minnesota Army National Guard's move has greatly resolved shortfalls in 
training area and travel time to existing training areas.
The Army National Guard Environmental Program
    The Army National Guard Environmental Program is a critical support 
piece of our Quality Installations. Supporting the readiness of Army 
National Guard soldiers and units, the program obtains and provides 
resources, guidance and policies that emphasize responsible stewardship 
of the land and facilities to the states and territories who then 
assure compliance with federal, state and local environmental laws. 
This is accomplished by promoting the Army's environmental goals in 
compliance, conservation and restoration efforts nationwide.
            Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) Environmental 
                    Program
    The Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) provides MILCON 
funding for energy and renewable energy projects greater than $500,000, 
which can show significant energy savings. The Army National Guard 
awarded its first ECIP project at the Arkansas Army National Guard 
headquarters in Little Rock for $790,000 in energy upgrades. Two 
additional ECIP projects--a wind turbine project at Camp Williams, 
Utah, and energy improvements at Gowen Field, Idaho--are waiting 
funding.
    The Army National Guard Energy Working Group has been selected as a 
team winner in the 2001--23d Annual Secretary of the Army Energy and 
Water Management Awards and as a team winner in the 2001 Federal Energy 
and Water Management Awards.
            Compliance
    The Army National Guard continues to improve guidance and policy on 
a myriad of complex regulatory challenges to ensure compliance in an 
efficient, consistent and cost-effective manner. We are committed to 
meeting the Department of Army goal of having no new enforcement 
actions. It is likely, however, that the Army National Guard will 
continue to receive enforcement actions due to the aging infrastructure 
combined with inadequate Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization 
funding.
    In fiscal year 2001 the Army National Guard developed a strategy to 
support the use of mobility refueling vehicles. The Army National Guard 
supports a large fleet of these vehicles, which are used to transport 
bulk amounts of oil on public highways. These vehicles must abide by 
federal regulations determined by the Environmental Protection Agency 
as well as the Department of Transportation. This strategy provides 
guidance to the states and territories on a Fuel Management Plan, which 
stresses safe environmental practices. With proper implementation, this 
strategy has the potential to reduce our regulatory oversight and save 
more than $100 million in cost avoidance to construct permanent 
secondary containment structures.
    The Army National Guard has continued with the transition of 
environmental responsibilities at sites closed by the Base Realignment 
and Closure (BRAC) process. The Army National Guard has been involved 
in ensuring that properties are in compliance with environmental 
regulations and that the Army National Guard is not responsible for 
managing funding for the clean-up of the previous owners'/operators' 
actions.
    One concern is the uncertainty surrounding the regulatory framework 
for range compliance and increasing awareness of potential 
contamination or releases associated with range activities. An 
increased compliance requirement could affect current environmental 
budgets and have a significant negative impact on mission readiness if 
ranges cannot be operated due to environmental constraints.
            Conservation
    The Army National Guard Conservation objectives include improving 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes for various Army 
National Guard stationing and training support activities. Specific 
areas that the Army National Guard will address are the Fort Indiantown 
Gap Environmental Impact Statement, enhanced AH-64 training at the 
Western Army National Guard Aviation Training Site and the programmatic 
environmental documentation of transformation equipment fielding. The 
Army National Guard will also formalize agreements to address the more 
than 5,000 Army National Guard buildings that will reach the 50-year-
old mark in the next three years and potentially be eligible for 
historic structure designation.
    In fiscal year 2001 the Army National Guard completed 90 Integrated 
Natural Resource Management Plans (INRPs) for training sites across the 
nation. Each INRP meets a statutory requirement, SIKES Act 1997, and 
provides benchmark and goals to sustain training on Army National Guard 
properties while being stewards of the environment.
            Restoration
    The National Guard Bureau (NGB) is tasked to execute the Army's 
Installation Restoration Program (IRP) for federally owned Army 
National Guard facilities. In addition, state owned facilities are 
encouraged to evaluate their facilities for past environmental 
contamination. The restoration program is also responsible for the 
inventory and data collection for all closed and transferred military 
ranges within the Army National Guard.
    During fiscal year 2001, the Army National Guard completed 18 
Preliminary Assessments; another 30 are currently ongoing. Twelve Army 
National Guard Site Inspections were completed and seven additional 
inspections have been initiated. Investigations continue at three BRAC 
sites: Fort Chaffee (Arkansas), Fort Indiantown Gap (Pennsylvania) and 
Fort Pickett, (Virginia).
    The Army National Guard Restoration Program is actively working at 
several locations to investigate and determine remediation requirements 
at contaminated sites. These locations include: Camp Crowder 
(Missouri), Camp Navajo (Arizona), Camp Roberts (California), the Los 
Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (California), Safford Range 
(Arizona), Rehoboth NIKE Site (Massachusetts), and Farmingdale (New 
York). The Army National Guard achieved several successes this year 
with environmental actions. One is the Massachusetts Military 
Reservation, where the EPA accepted two decision documents for no 
further action at clean up sites.
    The Restoration program further supported coordination efforts with 
the Navy Base Closure Office at Barber's Point in Hawaii and with Army 
Materiel Command for the Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant, Ohio to help 
with land transfers to the Hawaii and Ohio Army National Guard.
    NGB is concerned about funding for investigation and remediation at 
state owned ranges that have been closed and transferred. The Army has 
placed this part of the range program under the Environmental 
Restoration, Army account, which precludes the use of the funding at 
non-federally owned facilities.
                   missioning the army national guard
    Over the past 20 months, Headquarters, Department of the Army, the 
Army National Guard (ARNG), and Forces Command used a deliberate 
planning process to mission ARNG combat structure. ARNG missions are 
derived from a variety of requirement documents in the Joint Strategic 
Planning System (JSPS). Through the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan 
(JSCP), CINC Integrated Priority List (IPL), Functional Plans, CINC 
Theater Security Cooperation Plans (TSCP), and other cyclic JSPS 
products, all Army requirements are identified.
    The Army is transforming itself to remain the dominant land force 
in the 21st Century while continuing to meet CINC requirements in 
support of the National Military Strategy (NMS) and the National 
Security Strategy (NSS). The ARNG is an essential component of the 
Army's ability to satisfy these requirements. The ARNG missioning 
effort was included in the Army's submission to the JSCP 1998, change 
1, which was signed by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff in July 
2001. Included in the apportionment tables in this document are six of 
the eight ARNG divisions. The two remaining divisions perform a force 
generation mission not reflected in the JSCP. Additionally, the 15 
enhanced Separate Brigades (eSBs) and the two Special Forces Groups 
have been apportioned in the JSCP.
    Of the six ARNG Divisions, four are apportioned to CINCs of Major 
Combat Operations (MCO), formally called Major Theater of War (MTW). 
Two more divisions are apportioned to CINCs that are non-MTW, for 
regional contingency planning. These six divisions and the 15 enhanced 
Separate Brigades (eSBs) have single theater focus based on their 
apportionment. This focus allows for streamlining the training 
development process. The divisions and eSBs receive Mission Planning 
Guidance (MPG) from their higher wartime headquarters, develop their 
Mission Essential Task List (METL) and submit it to their higher 
wartime headquarters for approval.
    The next step in the process is for the CINCs to designate ARNG 
combat units for specific missions in their war plans based on the new 
defense strategy and its planning requirements. Work continues between 
the CINC's Staff, the Joint Staff and the Army on this effort. Over the 
next 12 months CINC planning staffs will build their war plans. The 
Army will work closely with the CINCs to ensure Reserve Component 
capabilities are appropriately integrated in these plans.
    The next effort is to apportion the divisions in the upcoming JSCP 
2002. The eight divisions will be missioned to support MCO, regional 
CINC requirements, and the Generating Force. The JSCP will reflect the 
MCO and regional CINC apportionment. To provide a Generating Force, two 
divisions would be given this mission and document this in the Army 
Mobilization and Operations Planning and Execution System (AMOPES). All 
divisions still have the on-call missions to reinforce Europe, rotate 
for Small Scale Contingencies (SSCs) in Bosnia, Kosovo, Southwest Asia, 
etc. Another step in the ongoing process is apportioning forces in 
accordance with the different requirements for the new defense 
strategy, particularly in the mission area of Homeland Security.
Corps Packaging
    At the 122nd National Guard Association of the United States 
(NGAUS) convention in September 2000, the Chief of Staff of the Army 
(CSA) announced some of the results of the Army's deliberate planning 
process related to ARNG division missioning. The CSA announced the 
alignment of the eight ARNG divisions with the four Army corps. 40th 
Infantry Division (ID) (California) is aligned with I Corps at Fort 
Lewis, Washington. 34th ID (Minnesota), 38th ID (Indiana), and 49th 
Armored Division (Texas) are aligned with III Corps at Fort Hood, 
Texas. 28th ID (Pennsylvania), 29th ID (Virginia), and 42nd ID (New 
York) are aligned with XVIII Corps at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. 35th 
ID (Kansas) is aligned with V Corps in Heidelberg, Germany.
    By assuming the mission orientation of the aligned corps, corps 
packaging enhances the training readiness of the ARNG combat 
formations. The ARNG divisions achieve greater training and geographic 
theater focus. The association and teaming benefits with counterpart 
active divisions is an important element of the alignment. Corps 
Packaging does not however replace the higher wartime headquarters in 
the Mission Essential Task List (METL) approval process. The divisions 
receive Mission Planning Guidance (MPG) from their higher wartime 
headquarters, develop their METL, and submit their METL to their higher 
wartime headquarters for approval. Corps Packaging is used in the 
absence of a higher wartime headquarters. Under Corps Packaging, eSBs 
are also aligned under one of the Active Component Corps, providing it 
with the same benefits as the ARNG divisions. The figure below provides 
Corps Packaging in its entirety.
            the army national guard knowledge infrastructure
    Our nation is in a unique period in history where there is a great 
deal of change and opportunity. The Department of Defense is moving to 
take advantage of these changes and capitalize on the opportunities as 
they are presented. The Department of Defense knows that it must 
transform its business processes and infrastructure to enhance 
capabilities and free up resources to support war fighting and the 
transformation of military capabilities. To accomplish this, the 
Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review Report states, 
``organizational structure will be streamlined and flattened to take 
advantage of the opportunities that the rapid flow of data and 
information present.''
    At the nucleus of this effort for Department of Defense is the 
opportunity to exploit knowledge management. The Army National Guard 
readily embraces the opportunities associated with knowledge management 
by building a robust knowledge infrastructure (KI). Our KI supports all 
missions to include the National Guard's traditional mission of 
Homeland Security.
    For the Army National Guard to meet the needs of this century, we 
are using the technologies that facilitate our connection to all 
concerned activities. Embracing the central role of information 
technology through knowledge infrastructure efforts, the Army National 
Guard is fully committed to taking advantage of opportunities provided 
by information age concepts and technologies.
    The Army National Guard has devoted considerable effort in the past 
two years to increase high-speed Internet access. Recently, the Army 
National Guard significantly increased the available bandwidth, or 
allowable data flow, to the non-classified internet protocol router 
network (NIPRNET). Three of the seven Army National Guard Network 
(GuardNet) centralized distribution points or hub sites now have more 
than triple the amount of previously allowable data flow. The remaining 
four hub sites will be connected to the NIPRNET by March 30, 2002, thus 
resulting in improved Internet access.
    High-speed information access will make significant contributions 
to such areas as Distributed Learning (DL), electronic publications and 
forms, training simulation and World Wide Web technology applications. 
In addition, the ARNG is in the process of coordinating the 
installation of a dedicated secret internet protocol router network 
(SIPRNET) connection at each of the 54 STARCs in order to enhance the 
ARNG's classified communications capabilities.
    The ARNG leadership is committed to sustaining the KI that exists 
in the ARNG today. The ARNG, using data collection via the 
Headquarters, Department of the Army information technology metrics 
submission process, will focus scarce information technology resources 
to areas that are critical to both mission accomplishment and knowledge 
management.
Security
    Last year, Army National Guard embarked upon a four-phased approach 
to firewall implementation. Phase I involved purchasing and physically 
deploying two firewalls for each state. The second phase was to fully 
configure the firewalls at GuardNet's Defense Information Systems 
Agency (DISA) connection and Phase III involved configuring the state's 
connection to GuardNet, also called the ``front door'' firewall. Both 
phases II and III are complete.
    The final phase of this deployment is configuring the state's 
connections to external networks, also called the ``back door''. By the 
end of fiscal year 2002, the Army National Guard commits to 
accomplishing this final phase of extending the GuardNet perimeter to 
those back doors and meeting DISA security standards for all 
connections to GuardNet.
Video Services
    The Video Operations Center continues to improve the technology of 
the Army National Guard's video teleconferencing (VTC) systems. When 
time and distance are roadblocks to communication and productivity, 
video conferencing is an excellent tool for bringing people together 
with a visual message.
    The Army National Guard decentralized video teleconferencing to the 
state level in January 2001 by installing equipment that will allow 
states to have local control over their video teleconferencing. Video 
teleconferencing is currently centralized at the national level in 
Arlington, Virginia. States must work through the Video Operations 
Center at the Army National Guard Readiness Center to plan and conduct 
their local events. One other significant upgrade to the Army National 
Guard's knowledge infrastructure includes the addition of a Storage 
Area Network Solution, which provides a robust, flexible and scalable 
option for back up and continuity of operations. Constant mirroring of 
data provides a means to rapidly regain full capability in the event of 
a major system failure.
    Today, there are over 330 VTC centers throughout 50 states and 
three territories that aid in facilitating a wide range of state and 
national missions including training and family support. There are 257 
Army National Guard distributed learning centers to facilitate training 
soldiers, educating university students, and supporting government/
civilian business conferences.
    The Army National Guard plans to establish clear, reliable video 
teleconference on desktop computers and secure VTC to all states and 
territories by October 1, 2002. Costs for these projects are expected 
to run at about $4 million for the secure VTC and $500,000 for the 
desktop VTC. Army National Guard leaders are committed to providing 
soldiers and employees with the state-of-the-art information technology 
(IT). The future of IT is here and the Army National Guard continues to 
be a leader in establishing the cutting edge of IT. The goal is to 
position GuardNet as the premier network security model for the Army, 
which is being considered as the network to support the Homeland 
Security mission.
Logistics Automation Systems
    Army National Guard Logistics Automation and Logistics Standard 
Army Management Information Systems (STAMIS) are essential to force 
sustainment and readiness. These systems provide requisition financial 
data, equipment readiness reporting, OPTEMPO mile execution, asset 
visibility, resource stewardship, property accountability, centralized 
clothing records, and maintenance execution information.
    Fiscal year 2002 will mark a very busy year in Army National Guard 
logistics systems, building on the successes of fiscal year 2001. In 
fiscal year 2001 the Army National Guard successfully consolidated 54 
Army National Guard Corps/Theater Automated Data Processing Service 
Center (CTASC) sites to 4 regional sites and successfully completed 
systems acceptance testing of the Integrated Materiel Automations 
Program (IMAP).
    The Program Manager STAMIS and the Army National Guard will begin 
fielding Global Combat Service Support-Army/Tactical System (GCSS-A/T) 
to the 50 states and 4 territories in fiscal year 2002. This will be a 
landmark fielding. The Army National Guard will field a new Army STAMIS 
at the same time as the Active Component, bringing forth the vision of 
``An Army of One.''
    This fielding of GCSS-A/T includes the Integrated Logistics 
Analysis Program and Property Book Module (SPR). The Integrated 
Logistics Analysis Program brings a very powerful analysis tool to the 
Army National Guard. Additionally, the Army National Guard is changing 
the way it is doing business in the management of Organizational 
Clothing and Individual Equipment with the implementation of the 
Central Issue Facilities.
Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS)
    The Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS) infrastructure 
fielding was completed ahead of schedule, providing a wide area network 
that links National Guard and Reserve units in all 50 states, three 
territories and the District of Columbia. The latest software increment 
added force authorization and modernization, training, human resources 
functionality, and introduced mobilization planning. Increments 6, 7, 
and 8 will be fielded by fiscal year 2003 when the project transitions 
to Post Deployment Life Cycle Support.
Personnel Information Transformation
    The Army National Guard's (ARNG) active participation in the joint 
service initiative Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System 
(DIMHRS), the Army initiative Integrated Total Army Personnel Data Base 
(ITAPDB), the Personnel Electronic Record Management System (PERMS), 
and the disaster recovery and Continuous Ongoing Operations Plans 
(COOP) development ensures seamless operation of personnel actions 
affecting ARNG soldiers.
    The development of ITAPDB, a cross-component personnel database, 
will be used by the ARNG, the Active Army and the Army Reserve to 
migrate like-type and cleansed data to DIMHRS. This migration strategy 
ensures the transference of quality data into DIMHRS, enabling the Army 
to deploy a joint-service personnel/pay module consisting of integrated 
data and functionality.
    Additionally, efforts are underway to capture current detailed 
metadata information at the Department of the Army level that will link 
to a metadata repository at the Department of Defense (DOD). These 
repositories will provide the Services comprehensive and detailed 
information of all legacy data definitions, architecture, application 
processes, site capabilities and locations. This information will be 
required when developing disaster recovery plans and establishing 
joint-service COOP sites, as well as serving as historical 
documentation.
    Several near-term objectives will be accomplished by leveraging 
recent IT initiatives. Army Knowledge Online (AKO) provides a secure 
portal to access electronically stored images of soldier personnel 
records. With funding of the state-level PERMS project and state-level 
processing of ARNG enlisted records, every soldier in the Army will be 
able to view his or her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) online 
via their secure AKO account.
    AR-PERSCOM, PERSCOM, EREC, and NGB (officers only) will provide 
OMPF online this fiscal year. Activation of other applications is 
within easy reach; Army Selection Board System (ASBS), field to file, 
and eFile. These PERMS-based initiatives give the components the 
ability to electronically transmit individual documents and entire 
OMPFs via secure internet from the soldier in the field to higher 
headquarters and DA levels.
                                summary
    The morning of September 11, 2001 changed every American's world. 
For those who lost loved ones we can only imagine the pain and sorrow. 
While the Army National Guard cannot alter the course of history, we 
can continue to help heal those who are suffering and ensure we are 
prepared to respond to the changing demands of our world.
    The Army National Guard continues to provide mission ready units to 
the governors and to the President to fight our nation's wars. Our dual 
status has proven to be an enduring principle as we find Guardsmen on 
duty here at home as well as overseas in Kosovo, Afghanistan and other 
locations. We must guard against further attacks at home, while we 
prepare for a campaign abroad.
    That is precisely the role of today's Army National Guard. For 
almost 365 years, the citizen-soldiers of the Army National Guard have 
been the solid shield that has defended America at home, and the sword 
of power that America has wielded overseas in support of all her wars. 
Today is no different.
               the air national guard director's overview
    This is a critical time in our nation's history--a time of war. 
This is also a time when we must transcend trivial differences and 
diversified positions to prosecute and prevail against a vicious, 
irrational and unprincipled enemy.
    This is a time when we must focus all our leadership, energy, 
character and resources to bring and sustain the best-trained and 
equipped Air National Guard (ANG) men and women to America's defense at 
home and effective operations abroad.
    This is a time when we all must stand together--united, prepared, 
persistent and undeniably patriotic--as ``one Nation under God, 
indivisible''--at all costs, under any conditions.
    It was September 11th that marked time for these and all subsequent 
generations of Americans. On 11 September 2001, the world stood still--
but not the Air National Guard--nor our brothers and sisters in the 
Army National Guard and the countless thousands of other citizens who 
immediately responded to deter an unseen enemy from further assaults 
and destruction. As the events of September 11th unfolded, the Air 
National Guard, through years of preparation, training and commitment 
launched to our nation's emergency and desperate call for help. These 
Air Guard men and women brought with them the character and core values 
of generations of citizen soldiers and airmen. The volunteer spirit 
that answered the emergency bell to fire the first ``shots heard around 
the world'' on Lexington Commons in April 1775--rapidly responded to 
the ``shock heard round the world'' on 11 September during the brutal 
attacks in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania. While life 
changed forever on that tragic day, our Air National Guard volunteerism 
remains steadfast and reliable--even after nearly 5 months in 24/7 
operations.
    The patriotic Air Guard spirit was seen in the cockpits of fighter, 
tanker and airlift crews within hours of the attacks--operated by both 
full-time and traditional guard men and women. The Air Guard spirit was 
seen out the cockpit and passenger windows of Air Force One as the 
147th Fighter Wing rejoined to provide critical protection and escort 
our Commander-in-Chief.
    That same undaunting spirit is flying and fighting in distant 
lands; operating in dangerous, deplorable conditions; following the 
enemy deep into their own territory to stop the reigns of terrorism at 
its very core--guarding America from abroad in Operation Enduring 
Freedom. For those critics who have held the position that Air National 
Guard forces aren't available or responsive enough, they need only talk 
to the 193rd Special Operations Group from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 
These men and women who operate a High Demand Low Density weapon 
system, deployed just days after the attack to operations in these 
regions where they remain today--fighting the information and 
psychological war over enemy airspace.
    In addition, our Air Guard tankers are the critical enablers of the 
tactical fighter and bomber sorties that have forced the Taliban and 
its supporters to retreat from major strongholds in Afghanistan. The 
air war over Afghanistan is directly impacted by the efforts of our 
dedicated Air Refueling units.
    We will see greater participation of our Air Guard fighters in 
operations that take the fight against terrorism to places far from our 
shores--while protecting our homeland as part of a combined Total Force 
response.
    On 11 September, prior to the attacks, the Air National Guard was 
already committed dramatically to critical and ongoing Aerospace 
Expeditionary Force (AEF) operations in Operation Northern Watch, 
Southern Watch, the Balkans, and continuing to fight the war on drugs. 
The Air National Guard was already fighting fires raging in our states 
and supporting National Science Foundation missions in sub-arctic 
conditions. We had already contributed extensively to increasing 
requirements--all with meager 1984 endstrength numbers. We will 
continue these contributions--``Always ready--Always there.''
    On 11 September, the Air National Guard--became dual-missioned--
fighting a war on three fronts. With growing mobilization authority, 
the Air National Guard provides more than 25,000 men and women to 
Operation Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and AEF. Today those numbers 
include nearly 10,000 volunteers, 10,000 mobilized men and women, and 
sustained 1,300 AEF participants--many under partial mobilization and 
volunteerism.
    In Desert Storm we activated nearly 16,000 proud Air Guard men and 
women. In Bosnia, our contribution was close to 8,000 and Kosovo--
4,000. We have--in 5 short months--already nearly doubled our Desert 
Storm peak and tripled or better the other remaining major conflicts or 
wars of the last decade alone. The nature and timing of this war puts 
the Air National Guard in a very unique and positive leadership 
position. We will leverage and exercise this position. It is our 
destiny. It is our heritage. We have become a leader in this new 
world--during a decidedly new American experience.
    Today, our nation contemplates fundamental changes or shifts in the 
way we continue to ``ensure domestic tranquility'' and ``provide for 
the common defense.'' The hand we've been dealt for our future security 
environment cries out for greater involvement of our Air National Guard 
units. This new security environment demands a strong focus on Homeland 
Security issues, expeditionary operations and increased reliance on the 
citizen-warrior to support a dramatically downsized active component 
and a world characterized by multiple small-scale contingencies, 
transnational threats, terrorism, and humanitarian operations.
    The Air National Guard is represented in all 54 states and 
territories by 88 Flying Wings and 579 Mission Support Units, with over 
108,000 proud and skilled people--68 percent of whom are Traditional 
National Guard members--flying nearly 1,200 aircraft. We are 
significantly represented in nearly all Air Force mission areas 
contributing over 34 percent of the Air Force operational mission for 
as little as 7.2 percent of the ``blue'' budget and 1.8 percent of the 
Department of Defense budget.
    Over the last decade, the Air National Guard has significantly 
changed in both relevance and accessibility. Since 1990, the Air 
National Guard contributions to sustained Total Force operations have 
increased 1,000 percent with over 85 percent of all activity in support 
of CINC or service requirements. We are no longer a ``force in 
reserve'', but are around the world partnering with our Active and 
Reserve components as the finest example of Total Force integration. 
Air National Guard support to all United States Air Force operations 
over the last decade has increased from 24 to 34 percent of the Total 
Force aircraft employed. Contingency support has dramatically increased 
from 8 percent in 1993 to nearly 22 percent today. Prior to September 
11th, the number of Active Duty days per ANG member (above the 39-day 
obligation) had increased on the average by 12 more--all based on the 
volunteerism of our dedicated citizen airmen. Today, that number of 
days has grown as our men and women clamor to respond to our nation's 
call to the war on terrorism.
    During this year's critical call by our nation, the Air National 
Guard became increasingly important and forever relevant. We have all 
felt the sting of these events, and none of us should ever forget the 
lesson. We must be properly resourced. We must be modernized. We must 
be appropriately trained. We must continue to be ready while we always 
retain our citizen airman heritage.

                                         David A. Brubaker,
            Brigadier General, Deputy Director, Air National Guard.
                      the air national guard today
    The Expeditionary Aerospace Force Given the demand for aerospace 
forces over the past 10 years, the Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF) 
was designed as a--flexible force structure to ensure that on-call, 
rotational forces can effectively meet both our steady state and ``pop-
up'' commitments, while giving our people more predictability and 
stability in their deployment schedules.
    The EAF includes both deployable and non-deployable war fighting 
and support forces. The associated 10 Aerospace Expeditionary Forces 
(AEF) are deployable packages of aerospace power. The Air National 
Guard was critical to the concept from the beginning.
    In Cycle One of the AEF, the Air National Guard deployed 25,000 of 
its people--nearly 24 percent--almost 2,500 per AEF. We contributed 
almost 20 percent of the Total Force aviation package and 7 percent of 
the Expeditionary Combat Support or ECS requirements. The Air National 
Guard contributed 46 percent of the C-130 intra-theatre lift and 35 
percent of the KC-135 steady state air refueling AEF requirement. Of 
the Air Guard's 37 combat-coded fighter units, all six A-10 units, all 
six F-15 units, all four F-16 Block 40 units, the one F-16 Block 50 
unit, and 17 of 21 general purpose F-16 units were aligned during Cycle 
1 rotations.
    Air National Guard contributions to the Total Force have been even 
more robust in EAF Cycle 2--especially with the advent of the War on 
Terrorism--when every combat-coded Air National Guard fighter unit was 
aligned to participate, including eight Air Guard Precision Guided 
Munitions (PGM) equipped units. In Cycle 2, a total of 22 ANG F-15 and 
F-16 units were prepared and scheduled to fly the air superiority 
mission until the events of September 11th. In addition, during Cycle 
2, as a result of the War on Terrorism, the Air National Guard will 
fill many Active Duty shortfalls. The events of 11 September have, for 
the short term, adjusted the AEF rotations and the ANG contributions in 
both numbers and duration. We expect to return to the AEF construct 
during AEF 3 or 4 this year.
    The Air National Guard conducts AEF rotations using a unique 
``rainbow'' concept that moves people through rotations while leaving 
aircraft and equipment in place. This effort reduces the TEMPO strains 
on citizen airmen, their families and employers while streamlining the 
logistics requirements.
    In Cycle 1 of the AEF, Air National Guard contributions across all 
operational mission requirements ensured a significant reduction in 
Active Duty TEMPO. For example, with a four-fold increased contribution 
of Air National Guard Precision Guided Munitions capability, the Air 
National Guard decreased the Active Duty TEMPO by 18 percent. With an 
Air National Guard contribution increase in eight of nine mission 
areas, the Active Duty TEMPO was reduced in seven of nine areas. The 
only area where both Active and the Air Guard experienced an increase 
in TEMPO was intra-theatre lift.
    The Air National Guard is busy. Our people are volunteering above 
Desert Storm peak levels with nearly 75 percent of our total workdays 
supporting Commanders in Chief (CINC) and service requirements around 
the world. Our men and women are proud of their contributions. We 
support ``real world'' missions that reduce the TEMPO requirements on 
our active component by at least 10-15 percent in almost every major 
mission area. Since September 11th, 2001, the Air National Guard has 
become even more critical to the execution of the full spectrum of Air 
Force missions. Tulsa's 138th Fighter Wing has been deployed to fly 
missions over Iraq five times since 1996. The 138th's most recent 
mission was in the Summer of 2001. South Carolina's 169th Fighter Wing 
is currently deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
    With the fielding of the Air National Guard's number one Combat Air 
Force modernization priority--Precision Guided Munitions (PGM) 
capability with the LITENING II Targeting Pods and Situational Data 
Link (SADL) capabilities--the ANG was able to provide 100 percent of 
the strike and air superiority fighters in AEF 9. We are more relevant 
to the fight than ever before in our history. Our transformational 
systems and processes to find and acquire effective capability proved 
invaluable in Post September 11th Combat Air Patrols as well as combat 
operations in Afghanistan.
    Additionally, our KC-135 fleet is tasked for the sole support of 
Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft at NATO Air Base 
Geilenkirchen. This entails an annual 850 flying hours and offloading 
over 6 million pounds of fuel during a 44-week year. Air National Guard 
units deploy two aircraft with sufficient flight, maintenance, and 
support personnel and equipment to sustain these operations.
    The bottom line is that in 30 months--or two complete cycles of the 
AEF--nearly half the Air National Guard knows first hand what it means 
to be an Expeditionary Aerospace Force concurrent with our role as 
guardians of our sovereign airspace. These same warriors will take this 
experience and knowledge back to their communities, families, employers 
and local and state political leaders. They will help the Air Force and 
the nation immeasurably in building understanding and support for a 
strong and ready Aerospace Force. The Air National Guard is picking up 
more and more regular Air Force missions.
The War on Terrorism
    Homeland Security entails the protection and defense of our 
territory, population, institutions, and infrastructure from external 
attacks and intrusions. Rapidly advancing technological capabilities 
will give large and small nation states the ability to threaten or 
directly attack the United States with asymmetric means such as weapons 
of mass destruction, cyber weapons and terrorism. Traditional means of 
defense often fail against these unconventional threats. Homeland 
Security will require us to engage, support and cooperate with all 
levels of government and the private sector in new and innovative ways.
    On the 11th of September 2001 the Air National Guard proved its 
capability to be dual-missioned, protecting America on three fronts. At 
0830 on September 11, 2001, the Air National Guard was actively serving 
abroad with over 4,000 people already deployed during the first two 
weeks of September in support of CINC or service requirements. We had 
1,204 people deployed on an AEF--representing 59 different Wings across 
six different weapon systems for a total of 158 aircraft. At 0845, with 
the launch of two Air National Guard units, the Air National Guard 
became dual-missioned. Within minutes of the Hijack notification, two 
Air National Guard F-15/F-16 units launched from alert status, one Air 
National Guard F-16 unit launched from a training sortie.
    The Air National Guard contribution did not stop there. Within 
minutes, intense coordination occurred between the Air National Guard, 
the Active Component Air Force and the Federal Aviation Administration. 
The 1st Air Force Operations Center staff increased from 38 to 153 
personnel. The Air National Guard Crisis Action Team acted as a 
coordinating force at Andrews Air Force Base.
    At the urgent request of the National Command Authority, the first 
aircraft scrambled in the skies above the National Capitol were Air 
National Guard F-16 Block 30s returning from an AEF training mission. 
Within hours, 18 Air National Guard Tanker Wings, were generated; 34 
Fighter Wings were ready with 15 already flying, and 179 missions were 
flown in the first day. The Air National Guard is still there side-by-
side with the Active Duty Air Force, Air Force Reserve, Marines, Navy 
Reserve and others.
    We continued to be a vital asset as Air National Guard units 
transported critical federal emergency personnel, civil support teams, 
blood, human organs, chaplains, communication equipment, civil 
engineers, and medical teams. Seventy aero-medical crews were alerted 
some responded to New York, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania. 
Still other Air National Guard personnel were sent to operate air 
traffic control towers, provide heavy equipment or work in more than 88 
command and control centers across the United States of America.
    By the end of November 2001, Air National Guard Fighters on all 
three fronts logged nearly 16,000 flying hours in almost 4,500 sorties 
with a daily average of 84 hours a day. Our tankers flew over 5,000 
hours in almost 1,000 sorties for an average of 75 hours a day. Almost 
25,000 Air Guard warriors met this ``dual-mission'' tasking--nearly 
double our Desert Storm Contributions and six times our Kosovo 
commitment. At first, Air National Guard fighters covered nearly 90 
percent of the Operation Noble Eagle tasking, but this is expected to 
normalize to 50-60 percent with the addition of increases in Active 
Duty Air Force participation along with other service support. Twenty-
four hour Combat Air Patrols and Alerts stress Air National Guard 
fighters, personnel and training requirements. As such, we need to 
examine alternative sharing relationships with others equally capable 
of filling this role.
    In addition to our Noble Eagle participation, Air National Guard 
EC-130s provide the nation's Commando Solo support in Operation 
Enduring Freedom. Other critical Air National Guard forces are 
currently employed in these operations against the war on Terrorism. 
Over 4,200 of our 5,300 Security Forces were mobilized with an 
additional 800 on Military Personnel Appropriation days. All four Air 
National Guard intelligence Squadrons were mobilized early along with 
Ground Theater Air Control Systems and Air Operations Groups.
    In practical terms this has proven that the Air National Guard is 
an essential element of the Total Force charged with protecting and 
defending America at home in addition to their primary role in forward 
deployed combat and combat support operations.
            the air national guard preparing for the future
    These unprecedented contributions by your Air National Guard all 
have occurred at a time when we have reduced our endstrength numbers to 
1984 levels. Over the last two years we've taken some major steps to 
``fix'' ourselves and build an organization that meets the demands of 
that period's strategic environment and the growing expeditionary 
requirements. That was, however, before September 11, 2001. We will 
need to re-examine our structure again--this time to see if we have 
enough for all the taskings we are expected to fulfill. We have already 
seen a growing requirement of nearly 7,350 full-time and endstrength 
increases to sustain Force Protection and Homeland Security 
requirements.
    Interestingly, we were better positioned for our response on 
September 11th because of our Quadrennial Defense Review deliberations 
last winter and spring. Our objectives then proved accurate in 
September. Air National Guard Homeland Security capability is derived 
from our wartime taskings, training, skills and equipment. Combine this 
with our position and experience within the local communities to 
provide the ``dual-missioned'' role that brings a powerful weapon in 
America's arsenal. The Air Guard leadership also recognized the 
critical link between our State Adjutants General in the effectiveness 
of militarily support to civil authorities. However we need to be 
mindful that all additional responsibilities in this area of Homeland 
Security need to be accompanied by appropriate additional resources as 
we retain--and always must--our federal war fighting role.
Space, Intelligence and Information Operations
    The Air National Guard mission in Space and Information Warfare 
mission areas is growing. Air National Guard Space Squadrons currently 
operate or support critical elements of the nation's Integrated Threat 
Warning/Attack Assessment mission, satellite operations, and command 
and control structure. A fledgling Information Warfare capability is 
taking shape as new initiatives in cyber warfare are being developed 
and will take advantage of Air National Guard capability in over 20 
states. Four Air National Guard Intelligence Squadrons currently 
provide essential Signals and Imagery intelligence capability to Major 
Commands and our war fighting CINCS.
    As the Air National modernizes to support current mission 
requirements, the environment for training must keep pace. The 
increased use of Precision Guided and Stand Off weapons will drive 
changes in the airspace and range requirements to properly and safely 
train. The greater emphasis and capability for night operations and use 
of Night Vision Goggles, for example, will create a need to fly in 
special use airspace with ``light's out'' creating unique challenges 
for operating in the National Airspace System. The potential 
contentiousness and length of time it can take to establish new, or 
modification to existing airspace makes it essential to identify 
requirements as early as possible. For example, the Colorado Airspace 
Initiative came to a successful conclusion only after seven years of 
development and negotiations. The Air National Guard remains committed 
to provide the training environment necessary to maintain the readiness 
of our force; and to balance those needs against public concerns 
through the process that seeks continued public involvement.
Recruiting and Retention
    During fiscal year 2001, the Air National Guard was faced with many 
of the same recruiting challenges that have confronted all the other 
service components over the last few years--a robust economy and a low 
unemployment rate. For the period of fiscal year 1997 through fiscal 
year 2000, the ANG met or exceeded its recruiting goal two out of four 
years--especially in fiscal year 2000, where increased and well-placed 
recruiting assets helped the ANG exceed its goal by 3.5 percent. Due to 
highly effective new bonus, grade, and incentive initiatives, the ANG 
experienced outstanding retention success in fiscal year 2001. As a 
result, the ANG had to adjust our recruiting efforts in July 2001 in 
order to stay within allowable tolerances of top-line end-strength.
    Our programmed end strength for fiscal year 2001 was 108,022. In 
July 2001, our assigned strength was approximately 108,419--already 
100.3 percent of our end strength. The Air National Guard Recruiting 
and Retention Team had exceeded all expectations in just 10 months of 
fiscal year 2001. This success was achieved despite the fact that the 
ANG's fiscal year 2001 end strength objective was increased over 1,300 
new positions from fiscal year 2000. The Air National Guard finished 
fiscal year 2001 at 108,486 assigned strength attaining 100.4 percent 
end strength. Starting in fiscal year 2002, the Air National Guard's 
programmed end strength has continued its growth reaching 108,400. As 
of 31 October 2001, the Air National Guard has attained 109,121 
assigned members.
    To continue to remain competitive in today's recruiting 
environment--especially due to extensive ANG requirements and 
contributions to the war on terrorism, the Recruiting staff has taken 
steps to project funds in fiscal year 2004 for two new initiatives: 100 
new recruiter authorizations for use as Air National Guard In-Service 
Recruiters (ISRs) and Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) 
Liaisons, and an increase of $13.7 million to the Air National Guard 
advertising budget in order to continue our National Target Campaign.
    For fiscal year 2001, the Air National Guard had the best retention 
rate among all components, all services. Our Retention Rate since 
fiscal year 1997 has averaged 89.4 percent. At the conclusion of fiscal 
year 2001, the Air National Guard's retention rate stood at 91.3 
percent, retaining more than 1,900 members over the same period last 
year.
    We have placed recruiting and retention emphasis on Air Force 
specialties where shortages exist, such as aircraft maintenance career 
fields, by offering enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, Student Loan 
Repayment Program, and the Montgomery GI Bill Kicker Program. As a 
result, in many of our critical maintenance Air Force Safety Centers, 
we have seen real strength growth from 2-6 percent over the last two 
fiscal years. These incentives have contributed greatly toward enticing 
and retaining the right talent for the right job.
    With regard to airmen career assistance services, the Air National 
Guard has a long established retention program which centers around our 
Retention Office Managers (ROM). Retention Office Managers are assigned 
to each Air National Guard wing and are responsible to the wing 
commanders for providing usable information concerning the health of 
their organization and deal with any and all retention issues and 
concerns. Through the Air National Guard Career Motivation Program, 
ROMs ensure all airmen are provided annual career interviews conducted 
by the members' supervisors and unit commanders. We have found this 
opens the communication channels and provides a platform to address 
issues or problems that, if left unattended, could result in the loss 
of valuable members.
Quality of Life Improvements
    During the past year the Air National Guard continued to see an 
increase in Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) take rates. Currently 450 
out of 483 eligible Active Guard Reserve pilots have signed up for the 
bonus. That equates to a 93 percent take rate. Aviator Continuation Pay 
has accomplished its goal by retaining qualified instructor pilots to 
train and sustain our combat force. Our greatest challenge will be 
pursuing legislation to eliminate the 1/30th rule as it applies to 
Aviation Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) and Career Enlisted Flight 
Incentive Pay (CEFIP). This initiative, which effects over 13,343 
officers and enlisted crew members in the National Guard and Reserve, 
is aimed at providing an incentive to our traditional aviators who do 
not qualify for the ACP for Active Guard Reserves and the Special 
Salary Rate for Technicians. Additionally our number one priority is to 
increase our traditional pilot force, which has maintained a steady 
state of 90 percent. We are also implementing recruiting procedures to 
expediently identify eligible prior-service military pilots that may be 
interested in a career with the Air National Guard.
    The past year has also seen a sustained unprecedented reliance on 
the Air National Guard since Operation Desert Shield/Storm (i.e. 
Expeditionary Aerospace Force, Homeland Security, Counterdrug, and 
Community Missions). The President and Congress both recognize that the 
requirements of Air National Guard membership in the new world order 
far exceed those during Cold War. As such, many new incentives and 
quality of life program enhancements have become law in a comprehensive 
effort to maintain the best retention in the face of the increased 
individual burden borne by our members.
    Each of these enhancements represents a significant accomplishment 
in making Air National Guard membership more attractive, one of our 
biggest priorities. Our first priority is the recent increase in the 
maximum coverage under the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance (SGLI) 
program to $250,000. On the heels of that improvement, SGLI was 
expanded to include families. The SGLI and Family SGLI programs provide 
our members a single comprehensive source of affordable life insurance.
    The recent creation of the Uniformed Services Thrift Savings Plan 
(UNISERV TSP), is another equally impressive example of far reaching 
quality of life initiatives. Under this program, all members of the 
Uniformed Services, to include Air National Guard members, are now 
eligible to supplement their retirement by participating in this 
program using pre-tax dollars, providing yet another incentive to 
continue to serve. The Personnel Policy Staff had the opportunity to 
represent the Air National Guard in the implementation of the program. 
We worked closely with our counterparts in Headquarters, United States 
Air Force and the Air Force Reserve Command to ensure a Total Force 
implementation occurred.
    The Career Status Bonus was also implemented allowing those 
entering the service after 31 July 1986, eligible for the least 
generous military retirement, to now have a chance to convert their 
retirement (Active, Guard and Reserve only) to the High Three 
retirement plan, or remain in their current plan by accepting a $30,000 
lump sum payment.
    Lastly, the TRICARE For Life legislation is an important 
enhancement that encourages our members to serve to retirement. By 
doing so, retired members who become eligible for Medicare at 65 are 
also eligible to have TRICARE as a supplement to Medicare, saving them 
significant amounts of money in their retired years. Recent 
improvements for TRICARE of mobilized Guard members will reduce the 
burdens on their families.
    This era of dramatic improvements directly translates to increased 
retention, further enhancing our ability to fulfill our federal and 
state missions while also participating in programs that add value to 
America. Building upon these successes, the National Guard Bureau 
welcomes recent congressional interest to extend TRICARE eligibility to 
Traditional National Guard members.
The Year of Diversity--2002
    Our Human Resources Enhancement programs, in particular our 
Diversity effort has increased mission readiness in the Air National 
Guard by focusing on workforce diversity and assuring fair and 
equitable participation for all. In view of demographic changes in our 
heterogeneous society, we have embraced diversity as a mission 
readiness, bottom-line business issue. Since our traditional sources 
for recruitment will not satisfy our needs for ensuring the diversity 
of thought, numbers of recruits, and a balanced workforce, we are 
recruiting, retaining and promoting men and women from every heritage, 
racial, and ethnic group.
    Despite a 7.8 percent reduction in force between 1989 and 2001, the 
Air National Guard has continued to become more diverse, and during the 
same period of time there has been a consistent growth in the 
recruitment and retention of women. The Air National Guard diversity 
strategy is built on a foundation of leadership commitment to create an 
environment that fosters diversity. The focus of planning is on 
establishing organizational structures, education and training, and 
establishing measures of success. Leadership's continuous emphasis on 
Equal Opportunity and diversity ideals and issues is necessary to 
maintain momentum and ensure training and program implementation. In 
addition, declines in prior service accessions require increased 
emphasis on training and mentoring programs. The Defense Advisory 
Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) recommended the Air 
National Guard Diversity Initiative as the ``Benchmark for all the 
Services and Reserve Components.''
    Our division's future initiatives in the areas of career 
development include the implementation of an Air National Guard formal 
mentoring process and the development of automated tools to track 
progress towards increasing opportunities for women and minorities. In 
the area of education and training we plan to develop and execute an 
innovative Prejudice Paradigm and Gender Relations training modules. 
Also, as part of our minority recruiting and retention efforts, we will 
sponsor an initiative to evaluate the retention rates of women in the 
Air National Guard to determine factors contributing to the attrition 
rate.
Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR)
    The success of the nation's defense is dependent on the 
availability of highly trained members of the ``Total Force''. The Air 
National Guard's mission in conjunction with Employer Support of the 
Guard and Reserve is to obtain employer and community backing to ensure 
the availability and readiness of Air National Guard forces.
    We've made participation for today's employers easier by our 
Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) predictability and stability. We've 
ensured a dedicated rotator to get our men and women to and from an AEF 
location. We've identified employer support in our Strategic Plan. 
We've taken the lead to establish a Reserve Component Airline Symposium 
where we meet with the nation's airline industry's chief pilots. We 
established several goals in our ``Year of the Employer 2001'' 
efforts--including an employer database that not only captures vital 
information on our Traditional National Guard employers to improve 
communication, but also the added advantage of capturing critical 
``civilian'' skills that can be leveraged for military experience. 
These are but a few of the initiatives taking hold as we focus on the 
``silent partner'' behind all of our men and women.
Family Readiness and Support
    The Air National Guard has identified the importance of family 
readiness. As a major partner in the Total Force Aerospace 
Expeditionary Force (AEF) deployments, the Air National Guard 
contributes 25,000 men and women towards the Total Force requirement 
every 15 months. Since 11 September, the Air National Guard has nearly 
doubled this sustained contribution in support of Operations Noble 
Eagle and Enduring Freedom--concurrently with sustained AEF rotations. 
This means today, nearly 50,000 Air National Guard member families are 
in immediate need of dedicated full-time family readiness and support 
services--specifically information referral support and improved 
communications and education capabilities. Until this year, Air 
National Guard Wing/Combat Readiness Training Center (CRTC) family 
readiness and support was run entirely by volunteers on a mere average 
annual budget of $3,000-$4,000.
    The Air National Guard has developed a program solution in fiscal 
year 2001 to fund a full-time contracted family readiness program at 
each Wing and CRTC. While funding for fiscal year 2002 has been added 
in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations, there is no 
sustained funding. Properly funded and resourced, the Air National 
Guard family readiness program will significantly enhance mission 
capabilities by reducing pressures on Air National Guard personnel and 
their families as well as improve their quality of life.
    The Air National Guard has also identified a need for childcare 
alternatives. With increasing demands from Air National Guard 
Commanders and family members, the Air National Guard formed a 
Childcare Integrated Process Team (IPT) to study innovative childcare 
options for the National Guard to include drill-weekend childcare 
access. Quality, affordable and accessible childcare for Guard and 
Reserve members is an important ``quality of life'' issue, especially 
for single and dual-working spouses, just as it is for our active duty 
counterparts. The Air National Guard has proposed a pilot program in 
fourteen locations nationwide to provide a low-cost, simple approach to 
providing quality, childcare access to National Guard and Reserve 
members. At completion, an assessment of the pilot program will be 
reviewed and any necessary guidance with projected costs will be 
validated. Our Active Duty Child Development Centers (CDC) have 
recently opened their doors for National Guard and Reserve childcare 
use on a space available basis at each of their sites. However, with 
only 14 of 88 Air National Guard Wings on an Active Duty Base where 
many of the CDC's are already operating at capacity, this will probably 
provide limited opportunity for many.
Personnel Management
    Our innovative personnel management programs, in support of the 
enlisted men and women of the Air National Guard were a total success 
during the last year. Due to recently implemented initiatives, we were 
able to promote 78 members to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant and 62 
to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant through the Temporary Floating 
Chiefs (T-Float) and Exceptional Performance Promotion (EPP) programs. 
Without these special promotion programs these individuals would not 
have been able to achieve these deserving promotions. Additional, we 
have processed well over 1,000 waivers, which covered such areas as 
enlistment, overgrade/excess assignments, and military classification 
actions. The approval of these waivers aided immeasurably in the Air 
National Guard meeting its end strength for fiscal year 2001. The 
Enlisted Grades Program was another success for fiscal year 2001. This 
program has added additional 88 Senior Master Sergeant authorizations 
to the Military Personnel Flights, which has provided enlisted career 
progression within the personnel career field.
    In fiscal year 2001, the Air Force deployed a modernized Military 
Personnel Data System. This total Air Force system [Military Personnel 
Data System (MilPDS)] is more technologically advanced, however there 
is still work to be done to bring the system to where all the Air Force 
components want it to be. Functionality that was put on hold during the 
six years of development needs to be added, and some processes need to 
be streamlined. The conversion of the system from client-server to web-
based is pending, and the expansion of the member self-servicing 
``module'' is on the high priority list.
    The Virtual Military Personnel Flight is the member self-servicing 
``module'' of the MilPDS and is available to service members from their 
homes, deployed locations, or everyday places of business. Deployed in 
January 2000, it gave members on-line access to review their personal 
information; duty history and awards and decorations information; get 
retirement credit summaries; do their own proof of service letters; as 
well as, access ``fact sheets'' on many personnel programs. When it is 
complete, members will be able to update selected personnel data on 
themselves, start numerous paper processes systematically, and find 
``fact sheet'' information on just about any personnel program in 
existence.
    The training portion of the MilPDS, named Oracle Training 
Application (OTA), falls short of the Air National Guard's required/
desired business practice. In an effort to make the Air National Guard 
training request process easier and available to a larger body of 
people, the Air National Guard has a development effort underway to 
provide this functionality outside the currently used OTA. The Training 
& Education Application Management System (TEAMS) is expected to deploy 
in February 2002. It will be web-based and initially have a manual 
interface with the OTA, but the end goal is to incorporate the TEAMS 
functionality into OTA and eventually retire TEAMS.
    The Department of Defense has a goal to deploy integrated personnel 
and pay systems that will support all the Services and their 
components. Previous and on-going efforts laboriously moved us toward 
that goal, but the program is gaining momentum. Expectations are to 
start development at the end of fiscal year 2002 and deploy service-by-
service with the Air Force being last in April 2006. This system, 
Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System, will replace MilPDS 
and portions of our Air National Guard-owned pay/orders/workday 
systems. This system will also include member self service, chartered 
with ease of use, it will help make some high visibility problems 
smoother; i.e., common reporting across services, cross servicing of 
members, status changes, and total military history availability.
Distributed Learning
    The Air National Guard has firmly established Advanced Distributed 
Learning (ADL) as a primary training vehicle for our members. The Air 
National Guard also uplinks training from our three studios in 
Knoxville (Tennessee), Panama City (Florida) and Andrews Air Force Base 
(Maryland). As a forerunner in this dynamic medium, the satellite-based 
Air National Guard Warrior Network has (since 1995) transported 
training and information to our members at 203 downlink sites at our 
bases throughout the nation. In addition to training delivery and 
production, these studios also serve as full communicative links to the 
states and territories in times of national and local contingencies. 
From the Andrews' studio, we provided timely updates to the field in 
support of Noble Eagle. From the Training and Education Center in 
Knoxville, Tennessee we transported critical information for the F-16 
community concerning their new wheel and brake assembly. This training 
saved over $120,000 in costs associated with travel of a mobile team. 
We also continue to enjoy good working relations with the Federal 
Judiciary Training Network, uplinking training to all their federal 
courts.
    Many state Guard units are developing cooperative agreements with 
local industry and academia to share development of ADL products and 
reinforce community relations. Project Alert (one such agreement) 
completed the conversion of twenty-one modules of training to CD-ROM 
and Web-based training for the Defense Equal Opportunity Management 
Institute, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida and for the Army National 
Guard during the past calendar year.
    We continue to work with the Department of Defense and all federal 
training communities in developing and delivering expedient learning 
pieces. The net result of these actions is helping to increase unit and 
member readiness. The challenge is funding for the future. The Air 
National Guard needs to be positioned to compensate learners, to assist 
with computer acquisition (or accessibility), Internet access, and to 
pay for conversion of courses into a deliverable format.
                    equipping the air national guard
    For the world's most effective, engaged, and employed reserve 
component, our Air National Guard capability in the future hinges on 
effective weapon system modernization and recapitalization--along side 
our Active Component. We need to ensure that our people are armed with 
the best and safest equipment our active component operates. Of the 
seven major weapon systems the Air Force operates, the Air National 
Guard has--on average--the oldest systems in every one--except the C-
130. Our readiness continues to be strained due in large part to aging 
aircraft, lack of spare parts, and increasing workloads associated with 
both.
    Our Air National Guard modernization efforts and roadmaps continue 
to push the envelope for all airframes. We are still focused on our 
Combat Quadrangle and AEF support with priorities given to precision 
strike, information dominance and battlespace awareness through Data 
Link/combat Identification, 24-hour operations and enhanced 
survivability. Our ``medium look''--extended to 2010--focuses on 
structural integrity and engines and keeping our airframes lethal. Our 
``long look''--out to 2015--projects the future missions and their 
impact on an expected decreasing force structure with a focus on 
seamless forces and capabilities across the Total Force and our Air 
National Guard preparations for this future.
F-16 Fighting Falcon
    To stay current and relevant in our Combat Quadrangle, we continue 
to press in all four areas--especially our Targeting Pods. We have a 
plan to have the entire Air National Guard F-16 community armed with 
this precision strike capability by fiscal year 2006. After 11 
September, as we saw the benefit of these Pods for Visual 
Identification, we recognized a critical need to push these schedules 
up significantly. Support and funding have enabled us to make some 
major in-roads this year and set the foundation for continued 
improvements.
    Our F-16, pre-block 40 fleet, becomes more interoperable and lethal 
everyday, now possessing full front line combat capability. However, we 
still need to tell that capability story better. We continually find 
others who don't understand our enhanced capabilities. They assume our 
F-16 pre-block 40's are only ``near Precision Guided Munitions (PGM)'' 
capable and as a result, they inaccurately place limitations on their 
use. These assumptions are quite simply dead wrong. Continued support 
is vital to our efforts to continue this critical program and remain a 
fully relevant Total Force partner. Our Block 25/30/32 jets are capable 
of employing Precision Guided Munitions by means of a self-designated 
laser-targeting pod. Our last group of pods started delivery in March 
2001 continuing through the February 2002 time frame. Combined with 
prior purchases, this will give us a total of 64 pods in our fleet. We 
still need 96 more pods to fill our one-for-one requirement.
    We are hopeful this year's funding will allow us to put a 
significant dent in this outstanding requirement. Until then, with 
``rainbow'' sharing of existing pods, the Air Guard will have nearly 
all our pilots, weapons loaders, and maintenance crews fully trained to 
deliver--full, not near--PGM capability. In other words, Air National 
Guard Block 25/30/32 F-16's will have the same capability as the Air 
Force F-16 workhorse--the Block 40/42.
    When we add a new capability--the Theater Airborne Reconnaissance 
System or TARS these F-16's will become increasingly viable as both a 
weapons delivery system as well as an information exploitation 
platform.
    TARS will return the manned tactical reconnaissance mission to the 
Air Force. In keeping with the modern battlefield's need for a 
responsive kill-chain, TARS improves the Air Force's ability to find, 
identify, and engage mobile/relocatable targets.
    Our current capability includes two electro-optical sensors for 
day, under the weather reconnaissance. We are working closely with our 
industry partners on an improvement package to add synthetic aperture 
radar (SAR), a data link, and the high bandwidth necessary to make this 
system an all-weather, day or night sensor. We demonstrated the ability 
to gather and relay critical information through the data link to the 
Air Operations Center (AOC). The result will be bombs on target within 
single digit minutes.
    All of our Block 25/30/32 jets are wired for the Global Positioning 
System (GPS) giving us precise navigation and target acquisition 
capability. At the same time our Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) is 
completely installed on our F-16's giving us 24-hour combat capability. 
Combined with installation of the Situational Awareness Data Link 
(SADL) we have significantly improved our F-16 Fleet. To meet our 
Combat identification requirements we need to give our Block 25/30/32 
aircraft an ability to identify both allies and adversaries. A 
procurement of an Advanced Identification Friend or Foe system will go 
a long way to enhancing the F-16's combat identification capability. We 
now need full support for ``Falcon Star''--a structure modification 
program that significantly extends the service life of this airplane 
and critical now more than ever since the events of September 11th.
    With a focus on Precision Guided Munitions capability, combined 
with Falcon Star engine and structure modifications and TARS, the Air 
National Guard F-16 block 25/30/32 community will provide the bridge to 
the next generation of power-projection precision combat systems.
KC-135 Stratotankers
    But our fighters don't get to the fight or get home safely without 
the efforts of our stalwart Tanker fleet. Increasingly, our Air Guard 
modernization focus has shifted to necessary improvements in our KC-135 
fleet. With congressional authorization to lease up to 100 wide body 
tankers in the fiscal year 2002 budget, we now have the additional 
possibility of replacing our aging E-models with either flow down KC-
135Rs from the active duty fleet or new tankers for selected units.
    Bottom line--we need to continue the modernization of our tanker 
fleet. Replacing the E-models with either active duty R-models or KC-X 
wide body tankers is the best solution. However, if the KC-X version 
does not work out, then it is critical we upgrade from the aging and 
operationally unsuitable E-models as soon as possible. We have a 
consolidated plan in place that includes the purchase of 100 R-
conversion kits at a rate of 16 per year. This would fix two full 
squadrons a year over the next six years at a cost of $352 million per.
    With the Pacer Crag upgrade complete this summer and the Global Air 
Traffic Management (GATM) kits buy beginning, we are well on our way to 
serious improvements in our Air Guard tanker assets.
    With our anticipated addition of Situation Awareness Data Link 
(SADL), the Air National Guard once again leads the way for issues that 
directly affect future expeditionary operations. With nearly half the 
entire air-refueling mission, the Air National Guard must not let 
tanker modernization issues be ignored.
C-130 Hercules
    Another concern that has surfaced in light of changing strategy 
requirements is whether or not we truly have 100 too many C-130's in 
service. Homeland Security and increasing Quick Reaction Forces 
requirements may alter force structure with a 3-front war (AEF, Noble 
Eagle, and Enduring Freedom).
    With increasing reliance on our Tactical Airlift workhorse, the C-
130, we are still pushing to fully fund the cockpit armor requirements 
necessary to operate in hostile conditions. This armor upgrade, 
mandated by United States Central Command, will make significant 
improvements in the survivability of our fleet while supporting AEF 
taskings. We need defensive countermeasures systems and battlespace 
situational awareness capabilities that allow us to operate in hostile 
conditions and to counter the prolific infrared threats.
    We continue our work to bring the full complement of C-130J 
aircraft to Air National Guard units in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, and California.
    In addition, our Air National Guard unit in Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania is converting from their EC-130Es to the EC-130Js cross-
decking the special mission equipment that makes this one-of-a-kind 
psychological warfare mission possible. Even as this modernization 
program continues, Air National Guard Commando Solo aircraft and crews 
are conducting operations over Afghanistan. By converting to the EC-
130Js, we will be progressing in this ``revolutionary'' program working 
with all stakeholders to iron out the bugs that come with any new 
weapon systems. We continue to complete our C-130J conversions as 
aircraft are fielded. This program will modify the C-130 fleet through 
2013 making it viable well into this century.
    Our biggest Total Force issue remains the C-130 Avionics 
Modernization Program (AMP) development. With the award of the AMP 
contract to Boeing, the Air National Guard is fully supporting the 
System Program Office. The Air National Guard is providing the first 
aircraft, a C-130H2, to the Air Force Flight Test Center and Boeing for 
AMP flight-testing.
    The Mobility Requirement Study, Homeland Security transportation 
needs, and the Army Transformation all point to increasing reliance on 
this highly reliable mobility asset.
C-5 Galaxy
    The Air National Guard will take all the C-5B's Galaxies that the 
Active Component Air Force wants to give us, and we'll get them and 
keep them in top shape.
    The C-5 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) is the first of a two-
phased comprehensive modernization for the C-5. This program redesigns 
the architecture of the avionics system, installs All-Weather Flight 
Control System (AWFCS), Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System 
(TCAS), Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS) and makes the C-5 
Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) compliant. The AWFCS replaces low 
reliability Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) in the automatic flight 
control system and replaces aging mechanical instruments in the engine 
and flight systems. A GATM capability, which encompasses 
communications, navigation, and surveillance (CNS) requirements, will 
be concurrently incorporated into the aircraft to maintain worldwide 
airspace access well into the 21st Century.
    The Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program is the second 
of the two-phased modernization of the C-5 that improves reliability, 
maintainability and availability. This effort centers on replacing TF39 
engines with more reliable, commercial off the shelf turbofan engine. 
This program also upgrades numerous other systems including: flight 
controls, electronics, hydraulics, landing gear, fuel system, airframe, 
fire suppression system, and pressurization/air conditioning system.
    It's critical to the national lift requirements that the C-5 
systems are modernized under the Reliability Enhancement and Re-
engining Program and used to fill the near 55 million ton mile per day 
lift requirements for a moderate-risk capability to support the 
National Military Strategy.
C-17 Transport
    As we contemplate an increase of C-5 Galaxies, the Air National 
Guard also needs more C-17's. With the current focus on strategic 
airlift shortfalls, many hope for an increase in C-17 fleet-wide 
numbers. As a result, we support additional C-17's for both the Air 
Force and the Air National Guard to adequately meet the full range of 
strategic lift requirements.
    The Air National Guard is striving to move the C-17 conversion 
forward at Jackson, Mississippi--replacing aging and retiring C-141s. 
We are laying the groundwork for the necessary infrastructure and 
support requirements, however we harbor serious concerns regarding the 
associated funding. We continue to work for the bed down in fiscal year 
2004.
    Not only do we need to continue the conversion efforts in Jackson, 
the Air National Guard advocates far more C-17's in the Air Guard with 
Active Associate attached units to facilitate the crew ratio 
requirements to keep this airplane fully utilized.
    Congress and the United States Air Force are reviewing the Alaska 
and Hawaii C-17 stationing options, as well as studying other ``hubs'' 
among the mid-western states.
F-15 Eagle/F-22 Raptor
    The U.S. House of Representatives defense appropriations 
subcommittee on May 11 endorsed spending almost $4 billion in 2001 for 
continued development of the F-22 Raptor. The $3.96 billion allotment 
would pay for ten initial production planes and advance funding on 16 
more of the next-generation air superiority fighters.
    The F-22 Raptor, developed at Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the replacement for the F-15 Eagle 
air-superiority fighter and will become operational early in this 
century. It combines stealth design with the supersonic, highly 
maneuverable, dual-engine, and long-range requirements of an air-to-air 
fighter. It also will have an inherent air-to-ground capability, if 
needed. The F-22's integrated avionics gives it first-look, first-shot, 
first-kill capability that will guarantee U.S. air dominance for the 
next three decades.
    Even once the F-22 becomes operational, F-15s will remain a 
critical warfighter. Air National Guard F-15s led the Air Superiority 
role in AEF 9 in Southwest Asia while continuing their air sovereignty 
alert requirements at home. This valuable weapon system struggles to 
remain viable versus ever more capable threats. The $26.4 million added 
for the Bolt-On-Launcher (BOL) for advanced infrared countermeasures 
and the $17.5 million added to complete installation of the Fighter 
Data Link (FDL) ensures the National Guard F-15s are able to face the 
threats being faced during their AEF rotations.
    Future critical F-15 upgrades include the Joint Helmet Mounted 
Cueing System, Advanced Identification Friend or Foe system upgrade to 
enhance combat identification, Airborne Video Recording System to 
capture crucial Fighter Data Link information for quality mission 
debriefing employment training, engine upgrade for sustainability 
issues, and Tactical Electronic Warfare System upgrade to survive 
current and future emerging threats.
    We are still concerned with the long-term reliability and 
sustainability issues associated with this aging aircraft. In order to 
maintain our ability to provide a reliable combat ready force, the ANG 
F-15's will need to upgrade its current engines. With $40 million in 
engine funding already secured, we must stay engaged to continue this 
critical modernization strategy. With the changing demands of today, we 
need to study the future of this community and consider the 
implications of Air Force F-22 Raptor purchases.
    Our current plan is to realize the benefits of Air Force F-15 flow-
downs. The current Air Force F-22 program anticipates the Air National 
Guard in only an associate role. We feel that in order to meet the 
challenges of tomorrow, the Total Force F-22 program must expand in the 
future to include an Air National Guard presence in a unit equipped 
role.
HH-60G Pave Hawk Helicopter
    The primary mission of the HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopter is to 
conduct day or night operations into hostile environments to recover 
downed aircrew or other isolated personnel during war. Because of its 
versatility, the HH-60G is also tasked to perform military operations 
other than war. These tasks include civil search and rescue, emergency 
aeromedical evacuation (MEDEVAC), disaster relief, international aid, 
counterdrug activities and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) space shuttle support.
    The Pave Hawk is a highly modified version of the Army Black Hawk 
helicopter which features an upgraded communications and navigation 
suite that includes an integrated inertial navigation/global 
positioning/Doppler navigation systems, satellite communications, 
secure voice, and Have Quick communications.
    The Air National Guard has 18 HH-60Gs at units in New York, 
California and Alaska. All aircraft now have 701c engines, Forward 
Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR), and operating 7.62 mm self-protection 
weapons.
    The self-protection system has AAR-47 Missile Warning System and 
ALE-47 Counter Measures Dispenser System to protect against Infrared 
Surface to Air Missiles. Three Air National Guard HH-60s have been 
modified. Five more are scheduled in fiscal year 2002. The Air National 
Guard is at the forefront of fielding Situation Awareness Data Link on 
the HH-60. The Situation Awareness Data Link will integrate the HH-60 
into the Combat Search and Rescue Task Force with F-16s and A/OA-10s. 
The program is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2002 and will outfit 
all ANG. Other requirements are not funded but are validated. Funding 
can be executed immediately for near-term capability.
A-10 Thunderbolt II
    The A/OA-10 Thunderbolt II is the first Air Force aircraft 
specially designed for close air support of ground forces. They are 
simple, effective and survivable twin-engine jet aircraft that can be 
used against all ground targets, including tanks and other armored 
vehicles.
    Basically the A-10 has a three-part requirements ``triad.'' First, 
the focus over the last year for our A-10's has been to ensure 
precision engagement capability that includes SADL, Targeting Pod 
integration, DC power, digital stores management system, and a 1760 
bus. These modifications will modernize the A-10 cockpit and allow the 
aircraft to drop precision munitions. Secondly, the ``Hog-Up'' is a 
funded Air Force Material Command initiative that is fully funded and 
will primarily replace wing spars. Lastly, current engines lack 
sufficient thrust in the medium altitude regime. With new engines the 
A-10 will be able to perform all missions with better survivability. 
The Air National Guard will complete writing the operational 
requirements for the new engine in 2002. An engine competition will 
occur after those requirements are approved.
    With all three programs, the A-10 will be able to increase its 
service life from the projected 2014 to 2028. However, in some circles, 
the A-10 is still perceived as a ``cash cow'' and reprogramming could 
jeopardize our initiatives to upgrade these systems. We are looking at 
more commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) engine solutions to save money and 
still improve the capabilities of this first-called, most-used ``hog.'' 
Eventually the Joint Strike Fighter will replace the A-10.
Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN)
    The ingenuity of Air National Guard transformation initiatives has 
made positive, mission impacting strides for our total force. Recently, 
our unit in Tulsa, Oklahoma conceptualized, assisted in the development 
and testing, and fielded a down-sized Low Altitude Navigation and 
Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) pod test station.
    The previous legacy test station used in the Air Force, LANTIRN 
Mobile Support Shelter (LMSS), is currently considered too large to be 
moved effectively to support contingencies due to the airlift it 
consumes. The new downsized test station fielded by the Air National 
Guard gives the Air Force an optimum deployment LANTIRN support 
capability that is otherwise not available.
Supporting Congress
    The 201st Airlift Squadron, District of Columbia Air National 
Guard, provides worldwide air transportation for Congressional Members/
Delegations (CODEL), the Executive Branch, Department of Defense 
officials, high-ranking U.S. and foreign dignitaries, and Headquarters 
U.S. Air Force inspection team travel.
    The 201st currently uses three C-22B aircraft to meet team travel 
and CODEL missions. The C-22Bs are 1964 model Boeing 727-100 aircraft, 
which are scheduled for retirement due to age and upgrade costs. The 
first aircraft has already retired and the remaining two are scheduled 
for retirement in November of 2002 and 2003. Congress recognized the 
need for replacement aircraft and provided funding in the fiscal year 
2001 budget to purchase the first C-40. The identification of ``C-40'' 
is the military designation for Boeing 737s. In the fiscal year 2002 
budget Congress authorized the lease of four additional 737s. 
Negotiations are in process with the Air Force to determine the 
disposition of those aircraft. The unit has an existing requirement for 
four medium-capacity aircraft, and depending on the disposition of the 
leased aircraft, funding may be required to purchase additional 
aircraft to meet the unit's requirement.
Summary
    This is where our Air National Guard Force is headed. This is where 
we need to go with them. The readiness levels of the Air National Guard 
depend on modern equipment availability. Adequate funding levels for 
Air Guard equipment are becoming increasingly critical.
    We are being called on to perform a greater share of day-to-day 
missions, as well as to relieve the high operational tempo for active 
duty forces. We can no longer wait until new weapon systems are totally 
fielded in the active component first. Compatible equipment is 
essential to reduced logistics costs and to enable Active, Guard and 
Reserve units to train and fight together.
    Our Air Guard warriors--the men and women who patrol the skies of 
Northern and Southern Iraq as part of the Aerospace Expeditionary 
Forces or AEFs, and flying critical Combat Air Patrols (CAP) sorties 
over our American cities deserve comparable equipment for committed and 
sustained contributions.
                 the air national guard infrastructure
Air National Guard Civil Enginnering
    Air National Guard infrastructure provides the Department of 
Defense enhanced operational capacity with its presence at 180 
locations throughout the country. In fiscal year 2001, the Air National 
Guard executed 96 percent of the Military Construction program that was 
available for execution; 100 percent of its Environmental program, 97 
percent of its Real Property Service program; and 108 percent of its 
Real Property Maintenance program. The challenges in fiscal year 2003 
will be extensively connected to the War on Terrorism--as seen by the 
recently identified facilities requirements for Anti-Terrorism/Force 
Protection and iterim alert beddown. Funding will also be necessary to 
meet equipment shortfalls for both the EOD and Fire Vehicles Program.
    While over 25 major USAF facilities and bases in the Continental 
United States were closed during the 1990s, the number of Air National 
Guard facilities remained relatively constant--recognized for their 
efficiencies and operations only focus. As a result, in many U.S. 
communities today, a National Guard member and the local National Guard 
base, installation, facility or office they serve at is the only 
connection for many Americans to the U.S. military. Maintaining this 
connection to local communities is more important now than any other 
time in America's history in light of the terror attacks of September 
2001 and as the percentage of Americans who have served or have a 
family member who served in the military continues to shrink.
    Due to the nature of Air National Guard installations, Air National 
Guard members are more visible in the community than their active duty 
counterparts. Air National Guard installations do not have the 
extensive support facilities typically present on active bases such as 
dormitories, golf courses, family housing, hospitals, child-care 
facilities, schools, youth centers, commissaries or main exchanges. 
Instead, Air National Guard personnel rely on the community for this 
support. The corollary gain is that the community interacts with and 
sees men and women in uniform regularly. This connection is a key 
underpinning of the public's understanding concerning the gravity of 
the use of military force: it's not just a force from a remote and 
disconnected location but someone they see and may know on a daily 
basis.
    Another advantage of Air National Guard installations in the 
community is the ability to attract and leverage the capability of 
aviation, information technology (IT), space, engineering and other 
technical (and non-technical) personnel who are employed by these 
industries in their civilian career. They learn and develop skills in 
the civilian world and apply these skills to Department of Defense 
requirements. And as part-time employees, they do it at a fraction of 
the cost of their active duty counterparts. Additionally, installation 
presence in the community allows the Air National Guard to attract and 
retain prior-service personnel. This is particularly important for the 
Air Force--a service that spends more resources and time training its 
enlisted and officer corps than the other services. Rather than 
completely losing highly trained and skilled professionals to the 
private sector, the number and range of Air National Guard facilities 
across the country provides both full-time and part-time opportunities 
for those who want to return home but continue to serve. Additionally, 
Air National Guard community presence also provides an opportunity to 
recruit personnel to active duty.
    Air National Guard infrastructure offers strategic advantages by 
being geographically distributed throughout the country. For example, 
when Pease AFB, New Hampshire closed in 1991, the Air National Guard 
took over some of the facilities and now operates in partnership with 
the local community. Pease International Tradeport (Air National Guard 
Station) is important. Along with other Air National Guard bases such 
as Bangor International Airport (Maine), and Otis Air National Guard 
Base (Massachusetts), Pease has not only provided continued Air Force 
presence in the Northeast United States, but also provides the staging 
point for the Northeast Tanker Task Force operation to help shuttle Air 
Force aircraft and forces across the Atlantic.
    Air National Guard infrastructure co-located on civilian airports 
saves considerably on overhead because the airport or the Federal 
Aviation Administration is responsible for many of the support costs 
such as maintaining runways and operating the control tower. 
Additionally, there is no military housing on Air National Guard bases 
and minimal community support facilities requiring construction or 
maintenance. The typical Air National Guard installation, with only 
350,000 square feet of facility space on 150 acres of leased property 
with a shared runway, provides the American taxpayer with a very 
efficient basing structure. Furthermore, a contract and state employee 
workforce supervised and monitored by a small (7-10 person) federal 
workforce executes most facility operations and maintenance. This 
``business plan'' of a small footprint operated by a largely contract 
and state workforce frees up limited resources for other priorities. 
Furthermore, innovative organizational concepts, such as ``active-
associate'' units allow for additional leveraging of Air National Guard 
infrastructure.
    Because of its ties to the state, the National Guard has a unique 
tradition of support to U.S. communities during environmental and man-
made disasters and crises. As the attacks on New York and Washington 
have shown, Air National Guard support of Homeland Security missions 
and responses will increase. Homeland Security includes combat air 
patrol; aircraft on alert; National Missile Defense; border security; 
counterdrug operations; chemical biological, radiological and nuclear 
response; environmental security; and information security. The 
Department of Defense and Air Force play emergency response roles in 
these missions, but the Air National Guard geographic presence across 
the nation can enhance response times and serve as staging or operating 
locations for impacted or at-risk communities. The Air National Guard 
community presence also provides day-to-day working relationships with 
first responders, with state authorities and with local communities 
prior to any potential attacks.
    The Air National Guard Civil Engineer and Services force structure 
offers ideal skills for application to emergency Homeland Security 
mission requirements. Disaster preparedness, fire protection, 
engineering planning, construction craftsmen, and force bed down 
capability is embedded at each flying wing. Additionally, a few units 
possess limited explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) capability. These 
skills can be leveraged with local community and state emergency 
response capabilities to provide expanded options to state and federal 
command structures.
    Shortly after the 11 September attacks, Air National Guard Civil 
Engineer units responded to numerous requests to support the 
requirements of the two major operations being conducted inside and 
outside the continental United States. Considerable assets have been 
provided in the readiness career field, along with power production, 
EOD, and fire protection services. To date thousands of individuals 
have been called to serve, with much more providing support through 
volunteer status. Service squadrons have been tasked to support home 
station alert missions being conducted for Operation Noble Eagle, to 
include billeting services, and food service requirements. All of these 
accomplishments are being conducted without any negative impact on 
steady state Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) commitments, and day-
to-day operations of our home installations.
    To support on-going Combat Air Patrol (CAP) and alert requirements, 
the Air National Guard has identified (and constructed) critical alert 
bed down needs at an interim cost of $21.3 million. Another $4.8 
million of interim facility requirements remains unfunded. 
Correspondingly, necessary operations and maintenance AT/FP 
installation upgrades have been identified at a cost of $104.9 million.
    Additionally, the Air National Guard is well positioned to accept 
missions transferred from the active duty. Not only do Air National 
Guard installations attract personnel separating from active duty with 
specific weapons system skills, Air National Guard installations have 
proven they can manage change by economically bedding down numerous 
missions as they are transferred from the Air Force.
Air National Guard Environmental Program
    Supporting Air National Guard infrastructure and operations is the 
Air National Guard environmental program consisting of four pillars: 
environmental compliance, pollution prevention, conservation resources, 
and environmental restoration. The environmental compliance program 
ensures we comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations 
and standards, including Department of Defense and Air Force 
environmental policies. The pollution prevention program allows us to 
reduce or eliminate undesirable impacts on human health and the 
environment by enacting change in the processes, practices, or products 
we use to conduct our mission. The conservation resources program 
ensures we protect natural and cultural resources. The environmental 
restoration program is designed to protect human health and the 
environment from past contamination and achieve closeout of its cleanup 
sites. A true success, the Air National Guard as completed its third 
year with zero Environmental Notifications of Violation (NOV).
Air National Guard Military Construction
    Future challenges include sustaining, restoring and modernizing the 
facility plant. Defense facilities are durable capital assets, which if 
properly built and sustained, have life cycles ranging to 50 years and 
beyond. However, in the absence of proper sustainment, these facilities 
perform poorly and decay prematurely, and without modernization, they 
become obsolete. If properly sustained, we could expect an average 
total life expectancy of 67 years--however with current funding, the 
Air National Guard will not be able to sustain the facilities and will 
recapitalize them on a 122--not 67-year cycle. Past under-funding has 
led to the present situation where Air National Guard installations 
report C-3 (significant deficiencies preventing some mission 
performance) or C-4 (major deficiencies precluding satisfactory mission 
accomplishment) for almost all facility classes defined by the 
Installation Readiness Report.
    Many of the C-3 and C-4 ratings can only be solved through 
replacement of antiquated facilities. The current backlog of MILCON 
requirements is $2.2 billion and growing. Annual funding from Air Force 
is generally in the range of $50-$60 million which means it would take 
over 36 years to buy out just the requirements on the books today. In 
addition to these current mission requirements, there are urgent 
funding requirements to bed down new missions such as new weapons 
systems (C-17) and convert existing missions to new roles (F-16 to KC-
135 conversions). The pending MILCON bill for these new mission 
requirements is in excess of $525 million and has the potential to grow 
even larger as a result of the Homeland Security missions in the post 
September 11 environment. Congressional help with this backlog of 
current mission and new mission requirements has been invaluable. 
Nearly 70 percent of the funding received by the Air National Guard in 
the last 10 years has come through Congressional inserts. Without these 
inserts, the Air National Guard would not be able to support our flying 
missions.
    Recent decisions to increase the fiscal year 2003 budget for Air 
National Guard installations represent a commitment to do better, but 
the cumulative deterioration occurred over the past decade, so it is 
not reasonable to expect a one-year budget increase to fix the problem.
    With the recent attacks on the homeland, Air National Guard 
installations are now recognized not only as platforms from which to 
generate force structure for overseas missions, but also as bases 
needed to protect the homeland. To successfully fulfill these rolls, 
upgrades are needed for the new Homeland Security missions as well as 
to reduce terrorist risk to the installations. New facilities to 
support alert aircraft as well as antiterrorist/force protection 
related construction requirements are needed for this new role. The Air 
National Guard has identified antiterrorist requirements such as 
upgrading/replacing perimeter fencing, relocating entry gates, 
constructing security walls, and replacing security forces facilities.
Knowledge Network
    The Air National Guard provides a secure network environment that 
meets the information weapon systems needs of the its citizen airmen. 
We play a dual role of providing both network development and network 
operation. We design and implement the Air National Guard network 
infrastructure that complies with all Air Force and Department of 
Defense standards. We provide unit communication commanders and their 
personnel with quality and timely information to exercise control over 
their respective networks and mission systems.
    First, we design a secure, interoperable network that is capable of 
meeting the application system needs of the Air National Guard. Second, 
we protect and monitor the network and then respond to network attacks 
to ensure the availability of network systems.
    Our first and foremost priority is to ensure the integrity and 
availability of the network to our Air National Guard customers. 
Additionally, we ensure that our network is compliant with Department 
of Defense standards and interoperable. Further, we assist our base 
network control centers in securing, monitoring, and troubleshooting 
their local networks.
    In the near future, we expect to evolve our network into a more 
robust, secure, and interoperable environment. We will work hand-in-
hand with the Air Force in developing a virtual private network (VPN) 
that provides encrypted, thus secure, information flow across the 
enterprise. We also seek to partner with the Army National Guard to 
develop crosscutting network architectures that reduce redundancy, 
enhance capabilities and provide cost savings.
                    training the air national guard
    In the last year, the Air National Guard filled more than just 
``positions.'' We brought skills, experience and training to the 
theater that exponentially increased Air Force AEF war fighting 
capability.
    In AEF 9, Air National Guard pilots averaged over 2,000 hours 
flying the F-16 versus 100 for their young active duty counterparts. 
Ninety-seven percent of our Air Guard pilots have more than 500 hours 
experience in their jets compared to thirty-five percent of their 
Active Duty counterparts.
    As the Aerospace mission becomes more sophisticated, our Air 
National Guard experience and maturity provides more solutions to a 
growing total force problem especially for our 5 and 7 level 
requirements. Air Force leadership recognizes the talent we have and 
the capabilities we bring. We get the opportunity to teach and shape 
future Air Force leaders on the value of the citizen airman and the 
unique requirements of our predominantly traditional force.
    Major General Dave Deptula, former Commander at Incirlik, said it 
best: ``Forty-nine percent of the units that participated in Operation 
Northern Watch were Guard or Reserve, and you couldn't tell the 
difference between the Guard or Reserve fighter pilot on his first day 
in theater, and the active duty fighter pilot in his 90th day there.''
    We can train others well because we are trained well ourselves. Its 
new mission areas like Tyndall's Associate Unit where the Florida Air 
National Guard trains the Total Force pilot to fly the F-15. Using a 
mix of 18 Traditional National Guard and 16 full-time instructor 
pilots, we provide what Colonel Charlie Campbell, the Squadron 
Commander, called a ``stabilized, highly proficient instructor cadre 
with great continuity and leadership.'' His perspective was backed by 
the former 325th Fighter Wing Commander, Brigadier General Buchanan, 
who stated, ``Our partnership with the National Guard is a good way to 
strike a balance that allows us to take advantage of the Air National 
Guard's resident F-15 experience while trying to bridge our current 
pilot gap.''
Training Requirements
    The Trained Personnel Requirement (TPR) is the process by which 3 
and 7 level Formal Training requirements are forecasted and received by 
the Air Force and its components. This process is the validation factor 
for hiring and training of instructors and the obtainment of classrooms 
and equipment. In turn, it also determines the ability to increase 
training allocations in the out years. The Air National Guard Personnel 
Force Development Division revamped the entire Air National Guard's 
formal TPR program two years ago while working in tandem with the 
Active Component, Future Force and the Readiness Team. This rejuvenated 
effort resulted in garnering 1,756 additional training allocations in 
fiscal year 2002 and 2,100 additional seats in fiscal year 2003. A 
byproduct of this renewed emphasis, over previous years, was an 
increased utilization rate from 66 percent in fiscal year 1999 to 84 
percent in 2001. This exceeded the Air National Guard goal by 4 
percent, as set by the Air Force. Additionally, in just two short years 
the Formal Training Branch has increased Air National Guard Formal 
Training allocations by 48 percent through this enhanced TPR process, 
thereby fast-forwarding our get well process by a full 18 months. This 
Herculean effort resulted in a total of 11,813 training authorizations 
for fiscal year 2003.
Training Slots
    The Air National Guard received 186 undergraduate pilot training 
slots in fiscal year 2001, up 13 from the previous year. The projected 
pilot shortage for most of the next decade makes it imperative to 
increase the pipeline flow to help sustain the National Guard's combat 
readiness--especially as we assimilate more non-prior service 
individuals as a function of our overall recruiting effort.
Training Bases
    We continue to pursue efforts to establish follow-on training bases 
for the KC-135E and C-130 pilots to offset training capacity 
shortfalls. Additional Air National Guard F-16 pilot training units are 
being established at Kelly AFB, Texas, and Springfield, Ohio. The 
recently converted F-15 school at Kingsley Field, Oregon is still 
expanding student production. The Air Control Squadron in Phoenix, 
Arizona is converting to a schoolhouse unit to train National Guard and 
Active Duty personnel.
Air Traffic Control
    From 14 control towers and 11 air traffic control radar facilities 
around the country, our air traffic control personnel controlled over 1 
million aircraft, placing the Air National Guard as the third busiest 
of the nine Major Commands in the Air Force and ensuring our ability to 
train and remain combat ready to perform this function during any 
contingency.
Ancillary Training
    Ancillary training requirements have been competing with our 
capability to prepare for and deliver our combat mission. We canvassed 
our units to identify the pressure points and just released a new 
requirement list that significantly reduces the numbers considered 
absolutely essential to our Expeditionary Aerospace Force culture. This 
has resulted in a reduction from 530 previous requirements to 69 
current ones--of which 53 apply to the Air National Guard. This gives 
our men and women more effective time to focus on mission and weapon 
system specific training.
                 the air national guard safety program
    Your Air National Guard warriors are doing the jobs they've trained 
a lifetime to do, and they are doing them with great attention to 
safety. Command emphasis and leadership has made the difference. Over 
the last decade, the Air National Guard has become the model for 
safety. We are starting the new millennium on a very positive note for 
flight, ground, and weapons safety programs. The following is a short 
list of this and past year's successes:
  --As an organization we, sustained or improved both Flight and Ground 
        Safety during an increase in operations.
  --Fiscal year 1998 was the first year there were only 3 Class A 
        Flight mishaps. It was also the lowest Class A Flight mishap 
        rate in Air National Guard history. The Air National Guard 
        Aircraft Maintenance Team was winner of the Air Force 
        Association (AFA) 1998 Major General Earl T. Ricks Memorial 
        Trophy. Strict compliance with safety and technical directives 
        equals zero mishaps. The Air National Guard had the lowest 
        flight mishap rate due to maintenance practices in Air Force 
        History: 0.83 percent for fiscal year 1998, best performance in 
        combat aviation history.
  --Fiscal year 2000 was the second year the Air National Guard only 
        had 3 Class A Flight mishaps. It was the second lowest rate 
        ever in Air National Guard history and the second year with a 
        mishap rate below one.
  --A full 68 percent reduction in flight mishaps over the last 4 
        years. Fiscal year 2001 was our best flying safety year ever in 
        the Air National Guard at 0.59 percent and no fatalities due to 
        aircraft accidents.
    Despite our increased operational and personnel TEMPO and the first 
and second cycle of the Expeditionary Air Force, we have accomplished 
another outstanding safety year.
Summary
    The Air National Guard is one of the most relevant, ready, 
responsive, and accessible reserve component assets in the Department 
of Defense today that operate on 7.1 percent of the Air Force budget.
    We in the Air National Guard are proud to serve this great nation 
as citizen-airmen. Building the strongest possible Air National Guard 
to meet the needs of the National Command Authority, CINCs and our Air 
Force partners is our most important objective. Our people, readiness 
modernization programs and infrastructure supported through 
congressional actions are necessary to achieve this vital objective.
    Since the end of the Cold War, Air National Guard forces have been 
increasingly deployed in support of the full range of operations. We've 
proven ourselves accessible, capable and relevant over the last decade 
culminating in the responsiveness on September 11, 2001. We have 
consistently proven our capability to train and deliver full spectrum 
air and space power across a wide requirement. We were ready to fight 
and win our nation's wars. We were always there to support ongoing 
contingency operations. We are fighting a war on terrorism. We continue 
to shape the environment through state-to-state partnerships and 
exercises. We will always and respond in a moment's notice as we did on 
11 September, to domestic emergencies and Homeland Security. The Air 
National Guard continues to expand how we see our future missions and 
ourselves.
    We count on the support of the Citizens of the United States of 
America to continue meeting our mission requirements. We are confident 
that the men and women of the Air National Guard will meet the 
challenges set before us. We will remain an indelible part of American 
military character as an expeditionary force, domestic guardian and 
caring neighbor.
             chief, national guard bureau closing thoughts
    As you can see from this posture statement, the citizen-soldiers 
and airmen of the National Guard provide the nation with a tremendous 
asset. They form units trained and ready to conduct or support combat 
operations. At the same time, their dedication, military skills and 
equipment are available to governors for the protection of the lives 
and property of our citizens on our own soil. We are America's hometown 
military presence and are committed to the welfare and freedom of our 
communities.
    The National Guard's unique dual status gives America's leaders a 
spectrum of options with which to provide for the security of our 
nation. Hopefully, this publication has been helpful to you in better 
understanding some of the complex ways in which that occurs.
    If, however, you have any further questions about the National 
Guard, who we are, how we operate or what we can do, I hope that you 
will feel free to raise them with those of us at the National Guard 
Bureau.

    Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, General. Before 
proceeding with my questions, I would like to note that General 
Davis has served this Nation in the military for over 43 years 
and I gather that this may very well be your last time you will 
be testifying here. If that is so, on behalf of the committee 
and for that matter on behalf of the United States Senate, I 
thank you very much for the service you have rendered to our 
Nation, for your leadership, your courage and valor. We will 
always treasure them, sir.
    General Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Inouye. General Davis, the supplemental bill that 
we have before us calls for the mobilization of 8,000 Reserve 
and National Guard, which would require the services to 
demobilize about 21,000. How do you plan to reach these levels 
when you have all these new assignments that you have been 
provided?
    General Davis. Sir, what we have done initially is look 
again at the units that have been alerted for mobilization and 
this hundred-plus thousand includes soldiers and airmen at 
least in the Guard and other services who have been alerted, 
and they have scrubbed that again and decreased some of that so 
we have not alerted them.
    We have also followed through in both the Army Guard and 
the Air Guard to scrub all the people who are on active duty in 
a mobilized status to see if some of them are being utilized as 
well as they need to be or could be and if we really have a 
requirement for 80 people and maybe we have 100 mobilized to 
make sure that we can take care of folks when we have 
difficulty during winter months because of people having colds 
and are not able to report to duty. So we are scrubbing those 
numbers to try to get them down. We will do that with some 
difficulty but I think we will be able to achieve the 
objectives.
    If we have continued requirements, though, it's going to be 
very difficult for us to do that. What we have tried to do and 
thus far been able to accomplish is make sure that if we 
demobilize somebody, we are demobilizing him because we no 
longer require their services, giving them ample opportunity 
and notification they will be demobilized. We have to be 
sensitive to the fact that many of them will be returning to 
their jobs. They have to give notification to the jobs before 
they return, and certainly we want to make certain as they 
reintegrate with their families, particularly those who have 
been deployed away from home, we want to make sure we give them 
adequate notification and preparation time for both the member 
as well as his or her family.
    Senator Inouye. In other words, demobilization will take 
some time.
    General Davis. Yes, sir, it will take some time. Initially, 
we have taken some of the units that were alerted for 
mobilization and withdrawn the notification, and looking at and 
working with the active component, both Army and Air, to see if 
we can utilize any different capacity or a different way the 
active component soldiers or airman can fulfill some of these 
requirements, sir.

                      DOMESTIC AIR COMBAT PATROLS

    Senator Inouye. The Air National Guard has been tasked with 
domestic air combat patrols and I guess that has also been 
called upon for demobilization. What sort of air combat patrols 
are you carrying out in this war?
    General Davis. I'll hand that one to General Brubaker.
    General Brubaker. We are continuing our air combat patrols 
over the United States. We are downgrading to a lesser amount 
of those patrols. That has freed up folks that can be 
demobilized and we're doing what we call strip alerts now at 
several sites.
    Senator Inouye. Will that be enough to carry out the 
mission?
    General Brubaker. Yes, sir, it will.
    General Davis. Sir, we've done much of that with 
volunteers, and in the early part it was done all with 
volunteers, people who were able to come out and fly for 2 or 3 
days and then go back to their regular jobs. Many of the folks 
like myself would do it on the weekends and evenings, so we 
stood the 24-hour alerts and 24-hour combat air patrols, and we 
were able to do it with volunteers. At some point we had to 
mobilize some of the folks to do it. As we decrease that, we 
think we can sustain much of it now with volunteers or people 
doing their regular duty. It is not as heavy a requirement as 
we had had in the past, I think.
    Senator Inouye. As we note the number of troops in the 
Balkans and also in Afghanistan, some of us have been concerned 
that the forces are being overused, overtaxed. Is that a real 
concern?
    General Davis. As General Schultz said and I will defer to 
him shortly, we pay a lot of attention to that, sir. We look at 
home soldiers in each State, how many soldiers in each skill 
are being tasked for the missions in Afghanistan and in Bosnia, 
and much of that is Army Guard, the bulk of that is Army Guard, 
sir. As we look at that, we don't see any real strains.
    Now we do have some issues in some of our high-demand low-
density MOSs, as well as the FACs and the rescue business in 
the Air Guard. As we look at those, we see some potential there 
for it, and so we're looking to see what we can do to 
accommodate it.
    General Schultz. Senator, one example is, Bosnia's 
Stabilization Force mission, we discussed the 29th Division 
perhaps staying in country longer than the originally planned 6 
months and we said no. We have an obligation to the members, to 
the soldiers and their employers that once the mission was 
over, they would return rather than just extending in theater. 
And so I think as long as we use a rotational policy that has a 
sense of discipline to it, we're going to be okay, which means 
sharing or balancing the work load literally across all the 
units, and I think that's the way to work through this 
question.
    Senator Inouye. Soon after September 11th when we began our 
war on terrorism, employers throughout the land were very 
helpful and cooperative. Is this support still standing, is it 
staying?
    General Davis. Yes, sir, we think it is. As we talk to our 
members, and we're going to continue to do surveying of them to 
assure ourselves where we are. The National Committee for the 
Guard and Reserve has a new very energetic leader and he has 
come on board and moved out very rapidly. So we are doing a 
large number of events with employers.
    An example of the kinds of things we were doing before the 
29th Division deployed overseas, they had an employer support 
event in Maryland, one in Virginia, one up in Massachusetts and 
Connecticut, and that is where the soldiers who were part of 
that deployment were. Down in Mississippi where they had the 
155th Army Brigade, we had some events down there to let 
employers know what the soldiers are doing, or what the airmen 
are doing in the case of the Air Guard. So we have been very 
aggressive.
    A number of us in the senior leadership have been involved 
in those signing ceremonies. I was out at Xerox Document Center 
here about 2 months ago at one of those events, and we've had 
our folks all over the Nation. We are concerned about it, but I 
think people understand today that this threat is still there, 
so we are trying to continue to educate employers about that, 
and we aren't aware of any major issues we have. We have an 
individual issue here and there and we work those pretty 
aggressively, but we are not aware of any major issues we have.
    On a long time continuum, next 2 years or so, given the 
fact that it's a long protracted effort certainly to fight the 
terrorists, we could see some lessening of support. At this 
point we don't feel we are, and we have talked to the folks at 
the National Committee level as well as the individual State 
committees, and we're not seeing any lessening of it, sir.

                            ARMORED BRIGADE

    Senator Inouye. Thank you. Senator Cochran.
    Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. General 
Davis, we appreciate very much your mentioning of the good 
work, and General Schultz too, that the armored brigade from 
Mississippi has done in Bosnia, with the contribution you're 
making to maintain stability in that region of the world.
    It's interesting for me to note, gentlemen, I went down to 
look at the training that was underway there in preparation for 
that mission, and this was really a lot different from what 
those soldiers normally do. In an armored brigade, you think of 
tanks and activities in the field, gunnery and the like, but 
they had recreated a village and a post where they would 
actually be living in Bosnia, so they could get used to the 
environment and get accustomed to the challenges they would 
face in that environment.
    To what extent do you think that might detract, if it does 
at all, from the regular responsibilities or the normal 
responsibilities that a unit like that would have, a combat 
unit being assigned a mission of stabilizing a region and 
inspecting trucks and personnel on the streets and that kind of 
thing?
    General Davis. Sir, one of the things we pride ourselves is 
being part of the full spectrum military. We can go from one 
end, the high end acting aggressively, fighting, pursuing an 
enemy, to the other end doing such things as humanitarian, so 
we do that full spectrum.
    In the case of the 155th, that mission is what we call a 
dismounted mission. They normally would be in tanks and in 
Bradleys as an armored unit would be. This is what we call a 
dismounted mission, they are not in those vehicles. So it's 
more of a mission that they can train to with special training. 
Prior to deploying, though, I would say that they did go back 
following this mission rehearsal exercise down at Fort Polk, 
they do go back home and they do go back and fire at the 
highest level, maneuver levels with their tanks and with their 
Bradleys. So they are fully qualified.
    And these folks as it develops while they were in Bosnia, 
had an opportunity to go out and exercise some of the equipment 
that was in Bosnia, to actually go out and fire the equipment, 
and some of it hadn't been fired in over 1 year, as well as get 
their skills back up to speed.
    One of the difficulties with peacekeeping, peacemaking 
missions, is that very quickly it can turn into a wartime 
situation. All we need is an attack, and that can happen, so 
they have to transition very rapidly. So they have got to keep 
those skills up.
    During their off-duty time when they are not on duty in the 
rotation schedule they had where they would be on duty for a 
period and then they would be in a training day, and on those 
training days they went back to train on these same skills.
    I would like to have General Schultz comment on it, because 
it has been one of those things which we were concerned about, 
how their skills would deteriorate. It will deteriorate, but I 
would suggest given the training methodologies we have, it will 
deteriorate at a much slower rate because of the kind of 
training.
    General Schultz. Senator Cochran, as you know, the 155th 
Armor Brigade is a first rate outfit. They have been to the 
National Training Center. The skills we apply in Bosnia are 
slightly different but they are not all lost in terms of the 
leadership requirements. Lots of skills will transfer and 
result in high payoff tasks from the day-to-day mission in 
Bosnia to the likes of a mission for the 155th to deploy 
somewhere else in a combat arms setting.
    I would also say that if we think about that brigade just 
in this example, we expect that they would deploy a little 
later, should they be called on short notice to bring the 
brigade's full set of equipment to another theater. And so we 
change the plans in terms of our expectations just slightly so 
that we factor in, we know they're in Bosnia but they will 
deploy perhaps to another mission on a little later schedule 
than we had originally planned.
    So we manage that from a national level about which 
brigades are in a rotation like Bosnia and which ones are 
expected to deploy very early for their combat mission.
    Senator Cochran. I'm not sure the extent to which the 
National Guard is involved in this and so I'm asking this to 
just get information, but I know on the Mississippi Gulf Coast 
and in Alabama and Florida, we have had a combat identification 
evaluation exercise underway and various bases, even civilian 
airports are being used by military forces not only from the 
United States but observers from the United Kingdom are 
involved, defense industry people are there, and what they're 
doing is testing and evaluating new technologies and combat 
information and identification systems and procedures. The 
joint forces command has actually been responsible for this 
exercise. It ends tomorrow and I was wondering whether National 
Guard units were involved or if you were in any way involved in 
that activity.
    General Brubaker. Sir, I have heard of the exercise and the 
evaluations going on. I believe our First Air Force and NORAD 
folks are involved, but beyond that I do not know. I am happy 
to report back.

                                  C-17

    Senator Cochran. The Reserve forces and the National Guard 
in particular are going to be undertaking more and more 
responsibilities for airlift. Can you talk about the C-17s, 
which are going to be based, I think the first Guard unit to 
have them will be in Jackson, Mississippi, and we are very 
proud of that and we are trying to be sure everything is done 
that needs to be done to get ready so that the timetable of 
2004 that you mentioned can be met.
    To your knowledge, is the budget request that's before the 
committee in this submission sufficient in regard to the 
infrastructure needs, the manpower needs, and the flying hour 
expenses that will be required in order to carry out the 
mission of accepting and keeping these airplanes flying and 
people up to speed so they may contribute as expected?
    General Brubaker. Sir, we're working with the Air Force, we 
feel like more manpower and more flying hours is needed, and we 
are engaged with the Air Force to try to increase the funding 
to do that.

                  C-17 BASING IN JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

    Senator Cochran. I notice that you mentioned in your 
statement, I wrote down that you said that with respect to the 
C-17 basing in Jackson, Mississippi, that manpower and 
equipment shortages remain significant. I hope you can tell us 
if not right now, maybe for the record some specific needs that 
you see that ought to be met in this funding cycle in order to 
deal with those manpower and equipment shortages.
    General Brubaker. Yes, sir, I would be happy to detail 
those for you.
    Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    [The information follows:]

                  C-17 Basing in Jackson, Mississippi

    Plans and preparations for the conversion of the 172nd 
Airlift Wing's (AW) assigned aircraft from 8 C-141s to 6 C-17s 
continue to progress. With aircraft deliveries projected for 
fiscal year 2004, key facility construction, infrastructure 
upgrades, and equipment purchases have been accomplished to 
date. However, both near- and long-term funding shortfalls 
remain to be resolved.
    Two equipment requirements could not be funded in the 
fiscal year 2003 President's Budget: maintenance training 
device support equipment ($1.28 million) and composite shop 
equipment ($250,000). Procuring these long-lead items in fiscal 
year 2003 is necessary to ensure equipment availability for 
172nd AW personnel to train with and to properly maintain the 
new C-17 aircraft.
    A larger funding issue involves manpower and flying hours 
in fiscal year 2004 and beyond. The funds programmed for the 
172nd AW's C-17 mission are not much different than the 
currently authorized 1,175 military personnel (of whom 288 are 
full-time) and approximately 2,900 annual flying hours. These 
numbers do not reflect how the Air Force is operating the C-17. 
Active duty C-17s are programmed at approximately 1,400 annual 
hours per aircraft (vice the 480 hours per Air National Guard 
aircraft). In addition, the C-17 maintenance concept involves 
frequent home station inspections that require more manpower 
and 24-hour operations.
    In order for the 172nd AW to meet the Air Force utilization 
rate for the C-17, additional manpower and approximately 9,000 
annual flying hours would be required. The resulting annual 
bill for the 6 C-17 aircraft is estimated to be $64 million. 
Air Force, Air Mobility Command, and Air National Guard 
officials are working to alleviate the shortfall, but the 
prospects are limited. In the absence of additional Air Force 
funding or manpower to support the 172nd AW flying at the 
Active Air Force utilization rate, the newly procured C-17 
aircraft will not reach their full airlift potential nor will 
the 172nd AW be able to effectively contribute to worldwide 
airlift requirements that are increasing.
    One point to clarify, the 6 aircraft to be delivered to the 
172nd AW in fiscal year 2004 are part of the original 120-
aircraft buy. Should procurement of 180 C-17s be realized, the 
Air Force plans to base a total of 8 aircraft at Jackson.

    Senator Inouye. Senator Dorgan.
    Senator Dorgan. I regret I was delayed for your testimony, 
but I have reviewed your testimony and let me thank you for 
your service and thank you for the service of the men and women 
who serve under you.

               AIR NATIONAL GUARD IN FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA

    I would like to ask a question of General Davis and General 
Brubaker about the issue of planes available for the Air 
National Guard. You're well familiar with what I'm going to ask 
you about, I'm sure. The Air Guard in Fargo, the Happy 
Hooligans, as you know, are one of the best in the world. They 
have won three William Tell events, two Hughes awards, they 
have flown more hours air cover in this country since 9/11. 
They are I think the best pilots, by having demonstrated that 
in three William Tell awards and they fly the oldest airplanes. 
We have been working with the Air Force for some time on the 
airplane issue, and we're about out of time on the current F-
16s. We're scheduled to get some old Block 25s that I 
understand won't be maintained past the next several years, so 
it's a real problem that we have been working on. Can you tell 
me where we are on that issue?
    General Davis. First off, we agree with you, the Happy 
Hooligans have done a great job and we are all very proud of 
their track record over the years. I date back to the mid-60s 
with my relationship with the 119th. As we are transitioning to 
the F-22 and to the joint strike fighter in the longer term, 
we're looking at which aircraft will be available and right now 
it looks as if some of the aircraft will be available when we 
start cascading or moving downstream with the F-22 coming on 
board and there will be some additional aircraft available. 
Right now, we just don't have the right mix of aircraft 
available for the National Guard.

                                  F-15

    We have looked at the Air Force, we are working very 
closely with them in providing more F-15s to the National Guard 
in the air defense mission as they become available. This would 
be contingent upon the rate at which we bring on board the F-
22, sir, which is the replacement aircraft for the F-15 in the 
air superiority mission.
    Senator Inouye. May I interrupt? There is a vote going on.
    Senator Dorgan. Are we moving the F-15s at this point, do 
you know?
    General Davis. We have moved some of our earlier A models 
which had not been modified, but I think now we are on hold, as 
best I am aware at this point.
    General Brubaker. We have moved some A models, as General 
Davis points out. There will be some more movement and I would 
just like to say that we're going to examine opportunities to 
get some of those that are retiring and possibly transition 
some of the units sooner than what is currently planned. I 
think you will find we will be very aggressive about it, but 
I'm anxious to work with you on that.

                    GUARD AND RESERVE MODERNIZATION

    Senator Dorgan. I think that every year this Committee has 
to add money for the Guard and Reserve modernization and 
operation, and we are happy to do that. I think as perhaps my 
colleagues have said, we get more bang for the buck in 
investment in the Guard and Reserve than anything else we do, 
in my judgment, and I am immensely proud, as are all Americans, 
of what the men and women in uniform have done for this country 
for many, many decades, but especially proud since 9/11. I have 
been around the country and seen the men and women at these 
bases with their eyes filled with pride for what they are doing 
to serve our country in the cause of freedom, and we thank you 
and ask you to thank them for us. Thank you very much.
    General Davis. We thank the committee for the outstanding 
job that you all have done in allowing us to have additional 
funding to keep some of those older weapon systems up to speed. 
We have been able to maintain a large number of them with some 
capabilities which exceed the capabilities of the newer 
aircraft that they're flying in the active component, so thank 
you to your committee for that kind of support over the years. 
It has not been just 1 or 2 years, and certainly the IIF 
systems and all that were recently placed on our F-15s in the 
Air Guard and the pods we have, precision guided munitions, 
which have allowed us to remain in the fight and participate 
very actively alongside our active component as well as our 
Reserve partners in the military operations that we undertake 
so often. I wanted to make certain to thank you for that kind 
of support. It's that and the kind of support we get in the 
Army Guard which allow us to be up front full-time players in 
this business. Thank you very much, Senator.
    Senator Stevens [presiding]. Senator Kohl.
    Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Stevens. I will be brief. 
I have a single question I would like to ask you, Mr. Davis.

                           CIVIL SUPPORT TEAM

    We have learned that when it comes to reacting against 
terrorism, time is of the essence, and everybody feels, every 
State feels that we cannot wait. One area that I'm very 
concerned about is the State of Wisconsin's lack of a National 
Guard Civil Support Team. Thirty-two States across the country 
have civil support teams, including our neighboring States of 
Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan. I believe that Wisconsin, 
like these other many States including our neighboring States, 
deserves to have and needs to have a fully equipped team 
integrated into the State's emergency response system.
    So my question of you, General, is when will Wisconsin get 
a National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support 
Team?
    General Davis. Well, as you stated very amply, sir, we have 
32 teams throughout the Nation and those teams, the initial 10 
were done based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) regions and then an additional 17, and then 5 additional 
teams were just announced this past fall. Those teams and their 
locations and basing are designed to provide coverage for folks 
here in America, in the United States. At the current time the 
Department of Defense feels that those teams are adequate, 32 
teams are adequate in terms of their ability to cover the 
population base here in the United States and provide the kinds 
of services they provide which are basically assessment, and 
they will help go out and find out what the problem is and then 
assist the folks in augmenting and bringing in additional help.
    At this point, sir, as far as my knowledge is, they don't 
plan to have any additional teams. Those teams will be in place 
and as we speak now we have some 26 of them certified, 26 of 
the 27 teams certified, and the other 5 teams are in the 
process of moving along. So I don't think I'm able to answer 
your question specifically, sir, in terms of when, because the 
current plan by the Department of Defense is to have 32 teams. 
It is not a call we make. We staff the teams, we train the 
teams and we implement the program, but those selection sites 
and all are made at the Department of Defense level and as far 
as I am aware, there will be no more teams. I realize there is 
a bill introduced----
    Senator Kohl. Clearly it's a disappointment for me to hear 
that from a State that doesn't have a team, so I would like the 
opportunity to perhaps follow up with you on that.
    General Davis. We will be happy to, sir.
    Senator Kohl. I thank you.
    Senator Stevens. General Davis, the department provided us 
little information about the tragic accident that ended in the 
death of four Canadians in Afghanistan. Could you give us any 
more information about that?
    General Davis. No, sir, I don't think I'm able to. One of 
the things we have done with that, as we do with other 
accidents, Senator Stevens, is we do a full-blown 
investigation. This one is additionally complex, I guess, in 
the sense that the Canadians are concerned about it and they 
also are doing their own independent investigation, so I 
wouldn't be able to comment beyond that, sir. I think it's 
premature to second-guess a lot of what went on beyond what's 
already been stated.
    We are approaching this as we do with any tragic accident. 
We certainly feel very badly and want to express our sympathy 
to the Canadians for their loss and those who lost their lives, 
as well as those who were very seriously injured, but our 
process is to have a team appointed to investigate, as you are 
aware, and to await their results. If we try to comment on it, 
we would be doing it at best anecdotally, sir, so I think it is 
probably best that we wait until that investigation is done. I 
would hope that somewhere in the investigation process that the 
Department will be able to come back and provide you members of 
Congress with some additional information, sir.
    Senator Stevens. We will be very interested because of the 
fact that it was a National Guard F-16 as I understand it, and 
the people have raised some questions where it's concerned.
    General Schultz, General Brubaker, we have a significant 
number of people now that have been mobilized and I am 
interested to know with this level of mobilization what is 
happening in terms of retention, recruiting, readiness and 
family problems. Can you give us a breakdown?
    Let me start with you, General Schultz. What effects is it 
having on the Army Guard?
    General Schultz. As of today, Senator, we're exceeding our 
strength objectives, so in terms of both the enlistments and 
the retention our figures are up slightly from even those that 
we planned for. We deal, of course, with families on a 
volunteer basis, and while certainly across the country we're 
dealing with some family issues and some employer issues, but 
to date we have clearly had the support of everyone on the 
missions that we have been asked to be part of, which is a good 
news story.
    Long term, what I'm seeing, it's probably a little early to 
anticipate that we have figured out all of the second and third 
order kinds of permutations here of sustained missions like we 
currently have. We are sending soldiers on duty just for the 
period that they're required and then return from a 
mobilization status to their normal traditional Guard status. 
And as long as we discipline that process, I think we will be 
all right.

                              MOBILIZATION

    Senator Stevens. We are having some questions from the 
private sector in terms of how long it's going to be. There is 
a time limit on this mobilization, isn't there?
    General Schultz. In the case of the partial mobilization, 
we have authority up to 2 years to call our members, and 
current Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) policy is we 
will call them for 12 months. And what we're saying is that 
even 12 months isn't long for certain missions, and then we 
ought to have something less than 12 months, and so some are 
180 days, and we are even considering rotations shorter than 
that. But today we have a 6-month and a 12-month rotational 
policy in the Army.
    Senator Stevens. What's your situation, General Brubaker?
    General Brubaker. Sir, I would echo General Schultz's 
comments. We're proud to serve, we have a lot of patriotism 
from our folks out there, they are happy to serve and be there, 
but when they are not being used, we need to get them home, and 
I think that's the primary issue.
    Senator Stevens. My staff tells me that the net result of 
these mobilizations will be that you have a shortfall of $1.3 
billion, assuming that the current level of manning is 
maintained. Are we prepared for that, or have you requested 
money to fund that shortfall and should we expect this to come 
down over the balance of this year or will it affect fiscal 
year 2003?
    General Davis. Yes, sir. We had a discussion about this a 
bit earlier. One of the things we're doing in looking at some 
of the units we've alerted for mobilization, not actually 
calling them up, and looking at reexamining the possibility of 
using active components of soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
marines for those missions. And I think that we will continue 
to scrub all of the people we have on duty, and as General 
Brubaker and General Schultz said, when they have completed the 
mission that they are called for, release them and let them go 
home. If you need them in 5 months or 6 months, you can always 
call them back during that 2-year period, but if they are not 
actively performing the mission on a given day or the next 
couple weeks or so, we ought to really look at and consider 
that. So we are scrubbing all our folks who are on duty, and 
working with the Air Force and the Army to make sure that if we 
don't need them and are not going to use them for a while, then 
let them go back home.
    Senator Stevens. General, we have to stand in recess. They 
tell me I have just a few minutes to make the vote. Pardon us.
    Senator Inouye [presiding]. I have been told that Senator 
Domenici has a few questions to ask. In the meantime, I want to 
ask some about health care. I have been told that some of the 
personnel are having problems with that. Is that so?
    General Davis. Yes, sir, they are, particularly in remote 
areas, rural areas primarily. There are a number of healthcare 
providers who don't accept TRICARE, they won't participate in 
the program because of some of the historical things, not 
getting sufficient funding for it, paper work, and taking too 
long to recover their funding, so we have had some problems in 
that area.
    One of the things the Department of Defense has done, 
though, as part of the mobilization, they have waived the $300 
per family, they have also allowed up to 15 percent above the 
normal funding or reimbursement that's allowed for a given 
medical procedure or a given hospital visitation or doctor's 
visitation.
    So we have experienced some problems in that area, sir. 
They are being very aggressively looked at as we speak, and we 
have had significant improvement in that from where we were 
immediately following September 11, but there are some problems 
that still remain in that area, sir.
    Senator Inouye. General, the Guard has faced considerable 
challenges in defining and coordinating this homeland defense 
and civil support missions. Since 9/11 and the subsequent 
creation of the Office of the Director of Homeland Security, 
has the Guard's role in civil support matters become more 
defined?
    General Davis. Yes, sir, it is better defined and we are 
working very aggressively with that office. General Fred Reese, 
the vice chief, has had the rose pinned on him for that. These 
meetings continue with them. We have worked very closely with 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and now with the 
Transportation Security Agency as we work our way through a lot 
of those issues.
    The standing up of the Northern Command, we have a cell of 
people who work that issue on a daily basis, and we have people 
who are meeting with them as they develop their manning 
documents and all. One of the difficulties in that arena is we 
don't have manning, additional manning for that command as we 
staff the command. I have asked both directors to scrub their 
documents and see if we can come up with some personnel for 
that and as General Schultz said, the additional AGRs and 
technicians for both the Army and Air have to be put at the 
unit level to improve readiness. That was our commitment to you 
all here that that was what we would do, and that is what we 
have done.
    But as we get more involved in the homeland security 
mission, be it the national missile defense and we have a 
portion of the ground piece there, or some of these other 
missions, we don't have full-time manning for that, so we will 
probably have to come visit with staff and work our way through 
that.
    But it is becoming better defined. We still have a long 
ways to go in that arena, sir. Historical things we have done 
in terms support to first responders, we're still doing an 
awful lot of that, still working with it and still doing some 
training. So it is much better defined than it was, but we 
still have a long ways to go, sir. And that to me, I think from 
my perspective, would be if something were to evolve over the 
next few years, I don't think we will be able to say that this 
is what it is and this is how it works. I think we will have a 
good handle on it, probably an 85 to 90 percent solution, but 
the rest of that is going to come in an evolving fashion.

                                MISSIONS

    Senator Inouye. My final question is a repeat. Are you 
really confident that the Guard and Reserves will be able to 
carry out their missions with 80,000?
    General Davis. Yes, sir. If we can't carry them out with 
80,000 then the missions will go somewhere else. If we need 
more than 80,000, then the system I think will respond to that. 
It has historically. As you are aware, we have authorization to 
go up to 1 million personnel as far as partial mobilization, 
and I think the decisions will be made as appropriate there.
    Right now we are being asked to do a number of missions, as 
an example some of the security missions, and one of the 
concerns we have is the op tempo of the active component also, 
not just the National Guard. So it is really a total Army 
solution or total Air Force solution, so we are concerned about 
how busy they are and how much activity they have as well as 
how much activity the Guard and the Reserve have.
    And we may end up--as we have looked and reexamined the 
threat, at the force protection levels that are required, we 
have decreased those force protection levels significantly in 
my opinion, and as a result of that we don't require as many 
people to perform those missions. Should there be another 
incident or an event, then that could change things 
dramatically, sir, and at that point we may well need more than 
80,000.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you, General, and may I now recognize 
Senator Domenici.
    Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you for holding this meeting, which is very apropos to 
what's going on in the world.
    Generals, let me just open by saying that personally I wish 
I had a lot more time. We do have too many assignments and very 
seldom will anybody hit the issue that surrounds you all and 
that is, how are you going to change permanently because of the 
terror in the world? I would assume that we are going to be 
making, you are in your respective institutions going to be 
making some short-term changes which you have already made, but 
I would assume that somehow or another you are going to be part 
of a longer term change, which has the potential for changing 
very little in assigning you similar missions to what you have 
now, or changing a great deal and having very different 
missions than you have right now. Would either of you or all of 
you care to address that reality and just talk about it for a 
minute or 2?
    General Davis. I think we will do some changing. I'm not 
really sure what direction it will take. There is a thought 
process among some folks that we should take the National Guard 
and give them the homeland security mission and be done with 
it. Many of us do not share that view, because we feel it's the 
Nation's job, not just the National Guard's. It's the Army's 
job, not just the National Guard component of the Army, and the 
same thing with the Air Force and the other services.
    One of the difficulties we see when you give a mission 
which is just a plain domestic mission here, most of our 
soldiers as we talk to them, and mine is anecdotal as I go 
around in Bosnia as well as out in the several States and all, 
and talk to soldiers and airmen, they all joined the Guard but 
they want to be part of the Air Force, they want to be part of 
the Army. If part of the Army is to deploy, they want to 
deploy. They want to go do the missions in the Sinai, and go do 
those other missions. In many of those missions our young 
people are standing in line and ready to go as General Brubaker 
said, and General Schultz said.
    So there's one thought process that they would give all of 
that to the Guard. I don't share that because I think it is the 
Nation's business and I think the nature of what we're doing 
has changed significantly and we are going to need to have the 
whole Nation participate in this, not just the military.
    Senator Domenici. But you're going to have an assignment 
within that, General, you're going to be doing something within 
that American situation that you have just described, you will 
have a role.
    General Davis. Absolutely we will have a role.
    Senator Domenici. Let me put it another way. Is your role 
going to be primarily to match up with the military that are 
full-time military and their plans, is your principal job going 
to be to be adjunct to backing your three respective nodes, or 
are there going to be some different jobs than that?
    General Davis. We may have some different jobs. As General 
Schultz talked to a little earlier----
    Senator Domenici. I'm sorry if I missed it.
    General Davis. No problem, sir. We are converting some 
units out there in our force structure as we try to redesign, 
but as we convert those, we can convert those to whatever it is 
that we need for specialized units. We think the bulk of the 
folks in both the Army Guard and Air Guard ought to be 
dedicated to what we call a dual mission, a mission to augment 
the active component and go overseas and do whatever we do as 
part of the active Army or part of the Air Force, as well as do 
missions back home.
    We do that now in civil disturbance. Young people were out 
here on the streets earlier this year and were not required 
this time, but from the National Guard in D.C., they came and 
did that mission. There are also those same young people that 
are deployed overseas to do missions alongside the active 
component. We feel that the Guard can best be utilized by doing 
both of those missions, because our young people will join the 
Guard and we think they will stay in the Guard for a long-term 
career if we can give them those kinds of options. If we tell 
them they are going to go to do just strictly domestic missions 
and stay here, they will do that I think for a while, but long-
term sustainment I don't think will be very rewarding.
    General Schultz. If I could, Senator, just do a brief recap 
from the Army Guard perspective. Today we are increasing 
military police units, chemical units, engineer units, aviation 
units in the Army Guard. We're looking--every State today has 
computer emergency response teams as an example, information 
operations teams. Just a few years ago they didn't even exist. 
We find tremendous skills across our formation in our units. 
Now, soldiers are coming to us with acquired skills perhaps in 
many respects, but we have a tremendous capacity in the Guard 
today to answer some of the information operations kind of 
departments, network defense and so on.
    We are also looking at making some of our units lighter. 
Tanks and Bradleys will be less, perhaps wheeled vehicles will 
be more in some of our units. And as I talk with you about 
major change across the Army Guard, I am doing this in concert 
with the support of our adjutants general.
    Senator Domenici. I know we are going to run out of time, I 
am and I have two or three more, but Brigadier General, did you 
want to comment?
    General Brubaker. No, sir, I couldn't add more than what 
General Davis said.

                            FIRST RESPONDER

    Senator Domenici. I have four New Mexico questions and I 
will submit them and you can answer them in due course, and I 
just want to ask two last questions.
    Right now in the United States, about 120 cities, most of 
them would be identified as major cities but there are some 
medium sized ones, have gone through the first responder 
preparation. Are you aware of first responder preparation? It's 
sponsored and paid for by the Federal Government. Are you part 
of the first responder team in any of these cities as they sat 
down over the last 2\1/2\ years? Are you there for a disaster 
that might be somebody polluting the city water, which would 
cause kind of a riotous situation in that town, and you have 
some of your people in that State? Could you share that with 
us?
    General Davis. Yes, sir, the National Guard has been 
involved in those, the adjutants general, the commanders of the 
Guard, they have been involved in those as well as their 
emergency preparedness folks in the National Guard, they have 
been involved in many of the exercises, most of the exercises. 
They have gone through an iteration where they look at the 
Guard being called up to participate and do serve at specific 
tasks, be it isolating a given area where there is 
contamination and that kind of thing, or providing emergency 
services in conjunction with the local first responders. So we 
have been working with first responders in that regard.
    Early on we did some training, and the decision was made to 
transfer that over to Justice, so the essence of some of that 
is between Justice and FEMA, they have conducted those, but 
yes, sir, we have been involved in those in the several States.
    Senator Domenici. The military actually ran the first wave 
of first responder, and something happened to move it to 
Justice, I guess they changed the appropriation.
    I want to say to the chairman and co-chairman on the 
record. One of the largest expenditures of money that comes out 
of a non-defense subcommittee has to do with first responder 
preparation in America and it might be as much as $650 million, 
which goes to these cities when they prepare a game plan for an 
emergency. That takes into consideration the hospitals, the 
doctors in the community, the police and the firemen. And they 
put it together in such a way that if they had a problem, this 
is how we would respond.
    I think it's very important that we inquire of the Defense 
Department how they see their mission with reference to first 
responder activities, because you already have a first 
responder being put together, you don't need to reinvent it, 
unless somebody challenges it as being inappropriate for that 
particular problem. And I think it would probably be important 
that wherever National Guard and Army can be part of it, just 
from the manpower and the helping with the kinds of things that 
are going to occur in these cities, it would be a rather good 
use and rather important, but I just give that to you.
    Generals, let me say, on the 23rd day of April, the USA 
Today had an article that said, ``the United States is all over 
the map on homeland defense.'' It describes a very uneven and 
sometimes inadequate response in different States to the 
problem of homeland security. Some States have no budget 
resources, some have no staffing, some have no expertise, and 
some have none of these. Does the National Guard and the 
infrastructure in each State provide an essential resource to 
lead the response of each State to provide homeland security, 
and why is the National Guard not being tasked with this 
mission in various States? At least we should be advised if you 
are not going to, because some States are not doing anything, 
they have no resources to become part of this.
    Wrap-up question. Does the National Guard infrastructure in 
most States possess the human and material resources to lead 
that effort and then, does the $4.1 billion that the Secretary 
of Defense requested in 2002 emergency supplemental that we're 
going to be considering soon, does it adequately fund the 
National Guard's mobilization and homeland security 
requirements? So I'm finished. You can probably take a couple 
minutes.
    General Davis. Where homeland security resides in a given 
State is that State's decision, sir; we don't participate in 
that. We have a very small office we've taken out of hide, I 
made a comment a bit earlier, that the additional full-time 
manning that we have gotten in the past 4 to 5 years, we have 
placed that, with the commitment to the committee, placed that 
at the unit level to improve and increase readiness.
    As we stand up our homeland security operation at the 
National Guard bureau, we will need some additional full-time 
manning for that, we do not have it at this present date and 
don't have the funding for that. So as the States decide where 
homeland security resides, and many of them have given it to 
the National Guard, to the adjutant general to deal with, but 
many others have not. They have put it in emergency management, 
which does not reside, in those States where it does not reside 
with the adjutant general.
    So that's, there is no consistency in how we are 
approaching this and that had been part of the problem. At the 
national level we don't have adequate resources to do that, to 
do the planning or to issue to them for the planning.
    Senator Domenici. And there is none of that money in the 
$4.1 billion?
    General Davis. As far as I know, there is none in there, 
no, sir.
    Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you. Senator Stevens.

                          EQUIPMENT SHORTAGES

    Senator Stevens. Generals, we got this report of, I think 
it was your report on equipment shortages for the Guard and 
Reserve. We were told that the Army Guard and the Army Reserve 
were in the worst position, shortfalls exceeding 20 percent, 
with the balance around 10.8 percent. With these mobilizations 
we have been talking about, how are we handling that? It almost 
seems to us like there is some units that are just totally left 
behind, they are short of equipment, they will never be 
mobilized if they are short of equipment. How are we treating 
this from a point of view of fairness in allocating the 
shortfalls? Has it been a factor in terms of your operation 
since 9/11, these shortfalls?
    General Schultz. Senator Stevens, it has, and to give you 
an example, radio gear that our units are currently not in 
receipt of, and so during the mobilization process, we bring 
those units up to speed on the latest radio equipment that they 
may use in theater, as one example.
    So as I talked in the opening about compatibility of 
equipment, what we have are dated legacy force kind of 
equipment, older trucks, older generation systems. So during 
the mobilization process, if there is a major compatibility 
problem, then we bring them up to speed. It has been an issue, 
without a doubt.
    Senator Stevens. Are there some units that are just 
allocated shortages so they will never be called up?
    General Schultz. Not on our part at all, not intentional 
for sure. Of course we have some very, very dated vehicles, and 
we keep track of those systems, but that doesn't mean they 
won't deploy; it just means that they would operate with 
equipment that has many hours, many miles, and so forth.
    Senator Stevens. When you're that far behind in money, 
where do you get the money if you're $1.3 billion behind 
already?
    General Schultz. We take what we have, Senator, and place 
those units on active duty. That's how the process works.
    Senator Stevens. How about you, General Brubaker?
    General Brubaker. Sir, I believe our equipment shortfalls, 
although substantial, don't keep us from deploying any of our 
folks.
    General Davis. We do some cross-matching as well.
    Senator Stevens. But if you look at the regular units, they 
go over there with the latest equipment. You can't disperse 
your people into places that are utilizing the latest equipment 
unless they too get it. How do you get it?
    General Davis. In some instances we deploy, as an example 
at Prince Sultan, a lot of the equipment is already in place, 
vehicles and that kind of thing, so we essentially fall in on 
the equipment. Sometimes it's necessary for us to do some 
additional training after we get our folks in country, cross-
trained on the equipment, and vehicles are an example. 
Sometimes we haven't operated those vehicles and they are a bit 
complex, so we will spend a day or so training on that, 
hopefully before we deploy, but if not, after we deploy and get 
in place, so we can operate.
    Senator Stevens. I didn't understand that. I understood 
that when units deploy, they took their equipment with them. 
General, your units take their planes with them, don't they?
    General Brubaker. Yes, sir, we do, but we share equipment 
among our units, but our aircraft are kept and maintained well 
enough to deploy.
    Senator Stevens. Well, I'm a little worried about that 
report about shortfalls, and I don't know how we play catch-up 
with shortfalls when we have all these additional demands, and 
we are going to have to get some basic briefings on how the 
money that we have been asked for now, if the money we have 
been asked for now can't catch up the units that were on the 
shortfalls then we are not expanding out to the kind of full 
mobilization that we were led to believe you are going to do. 
And we're not going into the full-time manning that are your 
targets.
    I don't really have a feeling for how you are handling the 
shortfalls and the full-time manning at the same time, it's the 
same money. Are you going to be able to do both, General Davis?
    General Davis. Well, sir, it's going to be very difficult. 
One of the things we do when we deploy, opening new bases for 
example, we take equipment and we take it from all units, 
active, Guard and Reserve units, and we put it on the ground 
just to sustain the rotation of aircraft in and out of country. 
When we do that, yes, this is going to create some shortfalls, 
because there is not much spare equipment that we have. As a 
result of that, there will be shortfalls. As we get ready to 
deploy a unit, we will take equipment from other units, other 
Guard units typically and sometimes from active units, to give 
to them so they can go and have all the equipment they need, 
primarily ground support equipment for aircraft, loaders and 
that kind of thing.
    We try to leave a lot of that in country. As an example, we 
have a number of our security forces units in the Air Guard who 
have been called up. A lot of their night vision gear and a lot 
of their other high tech equipment is being left in place as 
they rotate back to the States, so they're going to have 
shortfalls there. It's a combination of those kinds of things, 
sir, that give us the shortfall. At some point we need to 
reconcile the books and get adequate equipment for that, but we 
have equipment to operate at home and there are some shortfalls 
there, so when we deploy we make them shorter, so I agree with 
your concern about the situation, and we can get back with you 
on that.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Gentlemen, I'm sorry the schedule caused me to be late.
    General Davis, as I'm sure was expressed already by the 
chairman, I want to thank you for your service. You have been 
not only an excellent Chief of the Guard bureau, but you have 
developed into a good friend, and we wish you the best and 
hopefully we will see more of you along the way, but thank you 
very much. And I thank all of you for what you are doing for 
our Guard.
    Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
       Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Russell C. Davis
            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                        counter drug operations
    Question. The New Mexico National Guard Counterdrug Support 
Taskforce makes a critical contribution to the narcotics interdiction 
effort along our border. It also works throughout the community to help 
``high risk'' students through its Drug Demand Reduction Program. 
Local, state, and federal law enforcement officials have all testified 
to the positive and direct impact that the Task Force has had on their 
counterdrug efforts. Despite these proven results, I am concerned about 
the fluctuations that have occurred in the Counterdrug budget over the 
past few years.
    As you may know, the New Mexico Counterdrug Taskforce is 
responsible for seizing millions of dollars in illegal narcotics and 
arresting hundreds involved in this illicit trade.
    Given the increased homeland security demands being placed on the 
Guard, can New Mexicans expect the Taskforce to sustain or even improve 
these lofty statistics, and help keep drugs out of their communities?
    Answer. Many of the homeland security missions proposed for the 
Guard have significant overlap with the Guard's well-established 
counterdrug program. These areas of overlap include arrival-zone denial 
operations (of unwanted cargo and individuals), aerial and ground 
reconnaissance and observation (primarily of border areas but also of 
urban or rural areas of interest), and case support/intelligence 
analysis. By virtue of its well-established working relationship with 
key law enforcement and first-responders at the local, state and 
federal level, the Guard's counterdrug program may be viewed as a model 
for proposed homeland security operations.
    Increased homeland security demands will definitely not diminish 
the Guard's ability to assist law enforcement and community 
organizations to keep our citizens drug-free. In fact, the fundamental 
similarities shared by both counterdrug and homeland security 
requirements merit a closer look on how to better synchronize efforts 
between both missions to derive maximum value.
    Question. How will the operations tempo of the Taskforce be 
affected by the additional homeland security operations of the Guard? 
Does the current budget allow you to maintain a strong counterdrug 
operation?
    Answer. Budget fluctuations make it difficult for the New Mexico 
National Guard Counterdrug Support Taskforce (and similar task forces 
in all other states and territories) to sustain or improve support to 
law enforcement agencies and community based organizations working to 
disrupt the trafficking and use of illicit drugs. These budget 
fluctuations not only prohibit sustained and much-needed military 
support to civilian authorities, but also break faith with Guard 
members who are hired and dismissed in short order due to these funding 
swings.
    The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics 
(DASD-CN) is the responsible agency for DOD Counternarcotics funding 
and policy oversight for the National Guard's Counterdrug efforts. 
DASD-CN's annual President's Budget (PB) submissions for National Guard 
Governor's State Plans for domestic support have been flat to negative 
in real dollar terms for the past several years. Although Congress 
added $36-$50 million annually in the appropriation process, the 
program lost over 1,200 personnel between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal 
year 2002 based on recent military pay and allowance increases 
outpacing annual congressional adjustments. The fiscal year 2002 
Governor's State Plans program is currently budgeted at $197.2 million 
including congressional and DOD adjustments. The DASD-CN fiscal year 
2003 President's Budget request was submitted at $162.3 million. To 
remain within budget an additional 335 soldiers and airmen must be 
terminated by October 1, 2002, for a total of over 1,535 personnel 
released from duty since September 30, 1999.
    The level of support the National Guard can provide is limited by 
three primary factors: (1) The number of available and qualified 
soldiers and airmen; (2) The number of agencies each state determines 
it can effectively support; and (3) Available authorization and 
funding. A recent survey of state Counterdrug Coordinators found that 
approximately 4,850 personnel would be required to support current law 
enforcement and community-based organization requests for assistance. 
The fiscal year 2003 President's Budget request will support 2,265 
personnel. Currently, 32 U.S.C., Sec. 112 that authorizes National 
Guard CD operations, caps the number of Governor's State Plans 
participating personnel at 4,000.
                           150th fighter wing
    Question. The 150th Fighter Wing of the New Mexico Air National 
Guard at Kirtland Air Force Base plays a critical support role for the 
joint services in Defense System Evaluation (DSE). Because of its 
increased operations tempo due to the war in Afghanistan, the Air Force 
has taken away the Block-40 version F-16s from the 150th and replaced 
them with Block-30s. I am concerned about how this might impact the 
future of the important DSE mission of the 150th Fighter Wing.
    It is very important that the joint services have a highly 
dependable testing asset for their aircraft. The Air National Guard has 
long provided this critical service. Will the National Guard be able to 
keep up its testing mission in the future after the F-16? How can we 
ensure this mission continues?
    Answer. The 150th Fighter Wing's DSE program plays a valuable role 
in developmental testing of various air defense systems operating from 
the air, ground, and sea. A primary role of the air defense systems is 
to defend against fighter aircraft. Therefore, a major portion of the 
test regime at Kirtland is to validate performance against fighters 
which the 150 FW does extremely well. The characteristics of the F-16 
Block 30 are virtually identical to the F-16 Block 40. The conversion 
will have no noticeable impact on the current DSE mission.
    Today, and more so in the future, air defense systems need to be 
capable against a variety of threat platforms: short/medium/long-range 
missiles, cruise missiles, fighters, bombers, unmanned air vehicles, in 
stealth and non-stealth configurations. As the 150 FW aircraft mission 
evolves from F-16 Block 40 to F-16 Block 30 and on to the next 
generation fighter aircraft, like the F-35 (JSF), the DSE mission will 
be able to leverage that platform for its test support mission. The 150 
FW will continue to be a viable Total Force partner in the air 
expeditionary force and will be able to provide the test support as 
required.
    Question. How can we ensure that as the Air Force moves to the F-22 
and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), that the Air National Guard will be 
able to provide the critical testing that will be needed?
    Answer. The 150th Fighter Wing's DSE program plays a valuable role 
in developmental testing of various air defense systems operating from 
the air, ground, and sea. A primary role of the air defense systems is 
to defend against fighter aircraft. Therefore, a major portion of the 
test regime at Kirtland is to validate performance against fighters 
which the 150 FW does extremely well. The characteristics of the F-16 
Block 30 are virtually identical to the F-16 Block 40. The conversion 
will have no noticeable impact on the current DSE mission.
    Today, and more so in the future, air defense systems need to be 
capable against a variety of threat platforms: short/medium/long-range 
missiles, cruise missiles, fighters, bombers, unmanned air vehicles, in 
stealth and non-stealth configurations. As the 150 FW aircraft mission 
evolves from F-16 Block 40 to F-16 Block 30 and on to the next 
generation fighter aircraft, like the F-35 (JSF), the DSE mission will 
be able to leverage that platform for its test support mission. The 150 
FW will continue to be a viable Total Force partner in the air 
expeditionary force and will be able to provide the test support as 
required.
                                 ______
                                 
           Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
                            northern command
    Question. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced the creation 
of a new Northern Command charged with caring for direct defense of the 
United States, a decision that he called ``the most significant reform 
of our nation's military command structure'' since World War II. Such a 
claim creates expectations in the public and amongst the military 
itself that the United States is indeed better protected against the 
threat of terrorism, and that ``transformation'' is afoot. Has the 
Department of Defense indicated what the role of the National Guard and 
Reserve will be in this new Command? Were you involved in the decision 
making process that led to this command?
    Answer. The Department of Defense has given some limited 
indications what role the National Guard will fulfill at this time. The 
stand up of NORTHCOM is an ongoing issue and one that has yet to have 
SECDEF approval to include the National Guard role within the new 
command.
    The National Guard through the National Guard Bureau Homeland 
Security Office (NGB-HS) detailed a handful of guardsmen to provide 
input for the Implementation Planning Team. Having said this the 
National Guard Bureau and National Guard is not in the decision making 
process; we provide technical advice as two of the seven reserve 
components.
    NGB-HS has endeavored to articulate the role of the National Guard 
and to ensure that the NORTHCOM planning team understands that this is 
a primary mission accomplished by the National Guard.
                                  cbrn
    Question. In a recent GAO report (dated September 2001) it was 
reported that specialized National Guard teams, known as Weapons of 
Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, have been developed to assist 
state and local authorities in responding to a terrorist incident 
involving weapons of mass destruction. However, there are numerous 
problems with readiness and deployability. According to the DOD 
Inspector General the Army's process for certification lacks rigor; the 
program schedule has slipped; and there are no plans to arrange for 
dedicated aircraft to get the teams in position. Can you tell us what 
has happened since this GAO report was released? Are our troops 
adequately equipped to respond to Chemical, Biological, Radiological, 
and Nuclear (CBRN) attacks at home and abroad?
    Answer. The problems cited in the GAO report, which was principally 
based on the earlier DOD Inspector General report, were being 
aggressively worked at the time of the report and have been largely 
resolved.
    A rigorous formal certification process involving analysis of 
readiness factors by U.S. Army Forces Command, the National Guard 
Bureau (NGB), the Army Secretariat and Army Staff (HQDA), and reviewed 
by several staff elements of the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
(OSD) was used to certify the 27 WMD-CST authorized in fiscal year 1999 
and fiscal year 2000. The first CST was certified by the Secretary of 
Defense in July 2001, and the last in April 2002. These teams have been 
extremely busy and effective in responding in U.S.C. Title 32 status 
since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As of today, teams 
have performed more than 400 missions in support of requests from state 
and local authorities. An additional 5 teams, authorized in fiscal year 
2001, have begun their initial individual and unit training and are 
expected to be certified by the end of calendar year 2002.
    By law, the WMD-CSTs may only operate in the United States, its 
territories and possessions, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. 
They are adequately equipped to respond to CBRN attacks. Not all 
certified WMD-CSTs have Mobile Analytical Laboratory System (MALS) yet 
due to an ongoing reassessment of the acquisition strategy. In the 
interim, these teams have been equipped and trained in a technique 
referred to as the Dismounted Analytical Process (DAP). As technology 
in the area is rapidly changing, numerous improvements to WMD-CST 
equipment are being investigated and/or procured.
    Concerning the airlift deployability issue, it is still true that 
no aircraft are ``dedicated'' to support the WMD-CST mission. A number 
of WMD-CST response actions in U.S.C. Title 32 status, which ordinarily 
would not meet requirements for operational lift with U.S.C. Title 10 
assets, have been supported with airlift when that was necessary, but 
some issues in this area are still being worked. NGB, HQDA, the Joint 
Staff and U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) are defining a process 
and priority system to address the problem.
                                 ______
                                 
       Questions Submitted by Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz
            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                         counterdrug operations
    Question. The New Mexico National Guard Counterdrug Support 
Taskforce makes a critical contribution to the narcotics interdiction 
effort along our border. It also works throughout the community to help 
``high risk'' students through its Drug Demand Reduction Program. 
Local, state, and federal law enforcement officials have all testified 
to the positive and direct impact that the Taskforce has had on their 
counterdrug efforts. Despite these proven results, I am concerned about 
the fluctuations that have occurred in the Counterdrug budget over the 
past few years.
    As you may know, the New Mexico Counterdrug Taskforce is 
responsible for seizing millions of dollars in illegal narcotics and 
arresting hundreds involved in this illicit trade.
    In a recent GAO report (dated September 2001) it was reported that 
specialized National Guard teams, known as Weapons of Mass Destruction 
Civil Support Teams, have been developed to assist state and local 
authorities in responding to a terrorist incident involving weapons of 
mass destruction. However, there are numerous problems with readiness 
and deployability. According to the DOD Inspector General the Army's 
process for certification lacks rigor; the program schedule has 
slipped; and there are no plans to arrange for dedicated aircraft to 
get the teams in position. Can you tell us what has happened since this 
GAO report was released? Are our troops adequately equipped to respond 
to Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) attacks at 
home and abroad?
    Answer. Many of the homeland security missions proposed for the 
Guard have significant overlap with the Guard's well-established 
counterdrug program. These areas of overlap include arrival-zone denial 
operations (of unwanted cargo and individuals), aerial and ground 
reconnaissance and observation (primarily of border areas but also of 
urban or rural areas of interest), and case support/intelligence 
analysis. By virtue of its well-established working relationship with 
key law enforcement and first-responders at the local, state and 
federal level, the Guard's counterdrug program may be viewed as a model 
for proposed homeland security operations.
    Increased homeland security demands will definitely not diminish 
the Guard's ability to assist law enforcement and community 
organizations to keep our citizens drug-free. In fact, the fundamental 
similarities shared by both counterdrug and homeland security 
requirements merit a closer look on how to better synchronize efforts 
between both missions to derive maximum value.
    Question. How will the operations tempo of the Taskforce be 
affected by the additional homeland security operations of the Guard? 
Does the current budget allow you to maintain a strong counterdrug 
operation?
    Answer. Budget fluctuations make it difficult for the New Mexico 
National Guard Counterdrug Support Taskforce (and similar task forces 
in all other states and territories) to sustain or improve support to 
law enforcement agencies and community based organizations working to 
disrupt the trafficking and use of illicit drugs. These budget 
fluctuations not only prohibit sustained and much-needed military 
support to civilian authorities, but also break faith with Guard 
members who are hired and dismissed in short order due to these funding 
swings.
    The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics 
(DASD-CN) is the responsible agency for DOD Counternarcotics funding 
and policy oversight for the National Guard's Counterdrug efforts. 
DASD-CN's annual President's Budget (PB) submissions for National Guard 
Governor's State Plans for domestic support have been flat to negative 
in real dollar terms for the past several years. Although Congress 
added $36-$50 million annually in the appropriation process, the 
program lost over 1,200 personnel between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal 
year 2002 based on recent military pay and allowance increases 
outpacing annual congressional adjustments. The fiscal year 2002 
Governor's State Plans program is currently budgeted at $197.2 million 
including congressional and DOD adjustments. The DASD-CN fiscal year 
2003 President's Budget request was submitted at $162.3 million. To 
remain within budget an additional 335 soldiers and airmen must be 
terminated by October 1, 2002, for a total of over 1,535 personnel 
released from duty since September 30, 1999.
    The level of support the National Guard can provide is limited by 
three primary factors: (1) The number of available and qualified 
soldiers and airmen; (2) The number of agencies each state determines 
it can effectively support; and (3) Available authorization and 
funding. A recent survey of state Counterdrug Coordinators found that 
approximately 4,850 personnel would be required to support current law 
enforcement and community-based organization requests for assistance. 
The fiscal year 2003 President's Budget request will support 2,265 
personnel. Currently, 32 U.S.C., Sec. 112 that authorizes National 
Guard CD operations, caps the number of Governor's State Plans 
participating personnel at 4,000.
                         arng patriot battalion
    Question. The 150th Fighter Wing of the New Mexico Air National 
Guard at Kirtland Air Force Base plays a critical support role for the 
joint services in Defense System Evaluation (DSE). Because of its 
increased operations tempo due to the war in Afghanistan, the Air Force 
has taken away the Block-40 version F-16s from the 150th and replaced 
them with Block-30s. I am concerned about how this might impact the 
future of the important DSE mission of the 150th Fighter Wing.
    One of the issues that I have long been concerned about is 
underfunding for the New Mexico Army National Guard Patriot Battalion.
    Can you give me an update on the readiness of the battalion?
    Answer. The New Mexico ARNG Patriot battalion is in an unready 
status and has been for the past seven years.
    ARNG Patriot battalions are required to have 15 launchers. The New 
Mexico battalion is authorized only five launchers and has only three 
``on-hand.'' This adversely impacts unit readiness as soldiers must 
have the necessary equipment to train to standard. There is no Army 
plan to field this unit with additional launchers above the five 
authorized. They are scheduled to receive two launchers that are 
currently on loan to Greece in 2004.
    There is a shortage of assigned and qualified personnel. The 
battalion is authorized 413 soldiers and is currently at 46 percent 
strength with 32 percent of soldiers trained and qualified.
    Question. Will the battalion be able to conduct its wartime mission 
and does it have the necessary repair parts to bring all of its 
necessary equipment to a working status?
    Answer. The New Mexico ARNG Patriot battalion in not able to 
conduct its its wartime mission under its current structure. The 
battalion was organized as a non-doctrinal battalion and is not 
structured to deploy with its equipment. Consequently, the unit has 
insufficient equipment ``on-hand'' to conduct its wartime mission. This 
also makes collective training at the unit level difficult. New Mexico 
will continue to report an unready status until additional resources 
are provided.
    New Mexico does not have the required repair parts and appropriate 
funding to keep their equipment in a working status. Presently, there 
is a $14 million unfinanced requirement for technical repair parts that 
allows for plug-and-play diagnostics of the launchers.
                                 ______
                                 
           Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
                               misconduct
    Question. On December 21, 2001 USA TODAY documented that misconduct 
often goes unpunished under deficient state-by-state Guard disciplinary 
codes: Rosters are padded with ``phantom'' soldiers. Within individual 
National Guard units, as many as 20 percent of soldiers reported on the 
rolls are no longer with the service, meaning that if Guard units were 
called up, they might not be fit for duty. Is this true? Is the 
National Guard ready to put combat ready divisions into a major armed 
conflict?
    Answer. This is not true. The USA TODAY article misrepresented 
strength reporting and accounting in the the Army National Guard. The 
widespread, systematic inflation of unit strengths by unit commanders 
for the purpose of misleading federal authorities is not evident from 
either the General Accounting Office (GAO) analysis of recent trends, 
inspector general reports over the last five years, or our own internal 
review and oversight.
    In any large organization there are efficiencies to be garnered and 
we have taken the appropriate steps to ensure diligent oversight in 
this area. We have an internal reporting process to ensure that 
soldiers who are not participating, i.e. soldiers not getting paid, are 
systematically identified and action is taken to bring them back as a 
drilling member or separate them. Currently, this population represents 
less than three percent