    [Senate Hearing 109-301]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                     S. Hrg. 109-301, Pt. 2

                                                            Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                                      Department of Defense

                                                             Appropriations

                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                                       2007

                                             109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

                                                                  H.R. 5631

    PART 2
            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
            NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
         Department of Defense Appropriations, 2007 (H.R. 5631)--Part 2

                                                     S. Hrg. 109-301, Pt. 2

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 5631

      AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE
         FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                                     PART 2

                             Department of Defense
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    27-992                      WASHINGTON : 2006
    _______________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

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

                            Subcommittee on Defense

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

                               Professional Staff

                                  Sid Ashworth
                               Jennifer Chartrand
                                 Alycia Farrell
                                  Mark Haaland
                                  Kate Kaufer
                                Mazie R. Mattson
                                Ellen Maldonado
                                  Brian Potts
                                  Brian Wilson
                           Charles J. Houy (Minority)
                           Nicole Di Resta (Minority)
                            Betsy Schmid (Minority)
                          Kate Fitzpatrick (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                 Janelle Treon

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, March 7, 2006

                                                                       Page

    Department of Defense............................................     1

                           Wednesday, March 15, 2006

    Department of Defense: Department of the Navy....................    19

                            Tuesday, March 28, 2006

    Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the
      Secretary......................................................   107

                           Wednesday, March 29, 2006

    Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the
      Secretary......................................................   179

                           Wednesday, April 26, 2006

    Department of Defense:
        National Guard...............................................   243
        Reserves.....................................................   303

                             Wednesday, May 3, 2006

    Department of Defense: Medical Health Programs...................   353

                            Wednesday, May 10, 2006

    Department of Defense: Missile Defense Agency....................   437

                            Wednesday, May 17, 2006

    Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary...................   479

                            Wednesday, May 24, 2006

    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   535

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:38 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senator Stevens.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    STATEMENT OF HON. TINA JONAS, UNDER SECRETARY OF
                DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)
    ACCOMPANIED BY VICE ADMIRAL MARTY CHANIK, DIRECTOR OF FORCE STRUCTURE,
                ASSESSMENTS AND RESOURCES, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

                    opening statement of senator ted stevens

        Senator Stevens. I am sorry to be a little bit late. We
    have several conferences going on at the same time. Our co-
    chairman has indicated he cannot be with us now. But I do
    welcome you here, Ms. Jonas, with your colleagues. I understand
    you are joined by Admiral Marty Chanik from the Joint Chiefs.
    Admiral, you are the Director of Force Structure, is that
    right?
        Admiral Chanik. Yes, sir, the J-8 on the Joint Staff, which
    is Director of Force Structure Assessments and Resources.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. Well, it is good to have you
    both here and we look forward to your testimony. I am sorry
    that we have these conflicting things going on right now. There
    are conferences going on, caucuses on the questions of lobbying
    and the basic problems that we face as far as rule changes in
    those areas.
        As we meet here, our men and women remain engaged in
    critical missions. We just had a whole series of briefings
    about the budget aspects of defense and I think we all know
    that you have $67.5 billion for defense activities on this
    bill. That is a 6 percent increase as I understand it for this
    year. Included in that is $423.2 billion for Department of
    Defense (DOD) programs under the purview of our subcommittee.

                               prepared statement

        We will make your statements part of the record completely
    as well as Senator Inouye's in the record, and hopefully we
    will be joined by others.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye

        Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure for me to join you
    once again as we begin our oversight hearings of the fiscal
    year 2007 defense budget. For the sake of those who are here
    today, I want to point out that this is the twenty-sixth year
    that Senator Stevens has served the Defense Subcommittee as
    either its chairman or ranking member.
        His record of accomplishment during this period is
    unmatched. His knowledge of defense matters remains
    unparalleled elsewhere in the Congress. His dedication to the
    men and women in the military is inspirational. And, his
    fairness to members on both sides of the aisle is a model that
    all of us should emulate.
        So, Mr. Chairman I just want to reiterate what a pleasure
    it is for me to be able to join you once again as we formulate
    the subcommittee's recommendations for defense spending in the
    coming year.
        The budget request before this subcommittee is $422.6
    billion, an increase of $23.8 billion--not including
    supplemental funding for wars and natural disasters.
        It includes small percentage increases for our military pay
    and health care programs, and relatively large increases for
    procurement and day to day operations.
        I find it curious that a major emphasis in this year's
    request is to try to rein in personnel and health care programs
    at a time when the Defense Department is having such a
    difficult time encouraging young people to join the military.
        I also find it interesting that the Defense Department has
    decided to terminate the C-17 program when we are flying the
    wings off of our airlift fleet in the gulf. This is even more
    surprising when one learns that airlift is the Air Force's top
    unfunded priority this year.
        So to, I was surprised to learn that DOD planned to
    eliminate the second engine supplier for the Joint Strike
    Fighter after we have invested more than $1 billion to ensure
    we would have competitive pricing in what is expected to be a
    multi-thousand aircraft program.
        I hope to learn more about these subjects, and the DOD
    recommendations today.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to join you in welcoming our
    witnesses here today. Ms. Jonas and Admiral Chanik we
    appreciate all that you do for the nation in your current
    positions. We understand the challenges that you face in trying
    to meet our nation's military needs with limited resources. The
    chairman and I and this subcommittee face the same challenge as
    we prepare our committee's recommendations. We thank you for
    being here today, and look forward to your testimony.

        Senator Stevens. I am really quite interested in the
    conversation we are going to have today because we have talked
    about it a little bit on a personal basis, Ms. Jonas, but the
    sustainability of these budgets is beginning to worry me
    considerably.
        Would you like to summarize your statement? We have all the
    time in the afternoon, so I am not setting a limitation on any
    time. The whole statement, though, is in the record as though
    read.

                               SUMMARY STATEMENT

        Ms. Jonas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will just
    hit a few highlights of the budget if I might. We thank you for
    having us here today. I thank you for the opportunity to
    discuss the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the
    Department of Defense, and I would also like to thank this
    subcommittee for their strong support of the men and women of
    America's armed forces and their families.
        So let me just briefly summarize. The President's fiscal
    year 2007 budget request is $439.3 billion. This is a 7 percent
    increase over the 2006 enacted level of $410.8 billion. This
    subcommittee has jurisdiction over $422.6 billion, which
    includes operation and maintenance, procurement, research and
    development, and military personnel.
        The budget supports the President's 2005 national security
    strategy and the long war against terrorist extremists and the
    findings and recommendations of the 2006 Quadrennial Defense
    Review (QDR). The budget is aligned with the QDR, the strategic
    priorities, and invests in capabilities and forces the Nation
    needs to prevail in irregular warfare operations, to defend the
    homeland, and to maintain America's military superiority. Of
    course, this budget supports strongly our men and women in
    uniform and their families.
        In the area of prevailing in irregular warfare operations,
    the budget substantially increases the size and capabilities of
    the special operations forces. We invest $5.1 billion in 2007
    and $28.7 billion over the fiscal year 2007 to 2011 program
    period. Some highlights in that area include an additional
    14,000 special operations forces (SOF). That is a growth of
    4,000 forces in fiscal year 2007. In addition, we add SOF
    battalions, we increase funds for the Marine Corps Special
    Operations Command, and we establish a Special Operations
    Forces Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron, and we increase the
    number of Navy SEAL teams as well.
        In addition, we are increasing our joint combat power and
    the budget provides $6.6 billion in 2007 and $40.6 billion over
    the program period to complete the conversion of 48 regular
    Army brigades to 70 modular brigade combat teams. We also
    continue the modernization and integration of ground forces.
    The Future Combat System is fully funded in this budget, $3.7
    billion in the fiscal year 2007 period.
        In addition, because understanding the nature of the battle
    space on a minute to minute basis is critical to the success of
    our forces, the budget provides $1.7 billion in fiscal year
    2007 and $11.6 billion over the program for unmanned aerial
    vehicles to increase our intelligence-gathering capabilities
    and enable persistent real-time intelligence.
        In addition, we equip our forces with language and cultural
    skills that they need for the 21st century mission, and the
    budget highlights an investment of $181 million for fiscal year
    2007 to expand our language training for both general and
    special operations forces.
        The budget also invests significantly in defending the
    homeland against 21st century threats, including global terror
    networks and rising states with nuclear weapons. The budget
    provides $1.7 billion to develop countermeasures against
    advanced biological and other weapons and to tag, track, and
    locate and render-safe nuclear weapons.
        The budget also includes $10.4 billion in fiscal year 2007
    to produce and field additional ground-based and sea-based
    interceptors to defend against intercontinental and theater
    ballistic missiles, and $900 million in 2007 and about $9.3
    billion over the program to dramatically increase and extend
    satellite communications capabilities to our deployed forces
    around the world.
        In addition, we want to maintain our military superiority
    and our ability to deter or defeat conventional forces of other
    nations, and the Department maintains a robust procurement
    program. The budget invests $84.2 billion in 2007. Just as a
    point of reference, this is twice what it was in 1995, so that
    is an important area of investment for us. This includes funds
    to improve our joint air support capability, maintain and
    improve joint air dominance, and improve our maritime
    capabilities, including $4.7 billion to purchase additional
    aircraft, such as the Apache, the Chinook, Blackhawk
    helicopters, and the V-22 Osprey.
        We include $10.4 billion over the 2007 period to acquire
    more capable weapon systems also, such as the F-22, the F/A-E
    and F, and the first procurement, notably, of the Joint Strike
    Fighter in this budget.
        In the shipbuilding area, we provide $11.2 billion in
    fiscal year 2007. This includes seven ships, two DD(X)
    destroyers, two littoral combat ships, one Virginia class
    submarine, one amphibious assault ship, and the logistics ship,
    the T-AKE. So that is an important feature also of our
    investment program.
        Importantly, I would like to focus also on what we are
    doing for our service members and their families, because
    everything we do depends on their success and their dedication
    and skill. So in the area of military pay, the budget provides
    2.2 percent over the enacted level of 2006. But importantly, we
    also include for certain enlisted, senior enlisted members,
    $263 million in this budget to provide them additional
    increases over the 2.2 percent increase. So for example, an E-5
    with 8 to 12 years of service might receive 2.5 percent in
    addition to the 2.2 percent. So that is an important piece.
    Certain warrant officers would receive as much as an 8.3
    percent increase. So it is very important here.
        We also increase the basic allowance for housing to ensure
    no out-of-pocket housing costs for military families living off
    base. An average rate of 5.9 percent will be experienced by
    most family members.
        As many of you know, we have spoken about health care over
    the past years and our budget provides $39 billion to provide
    health care for our military personnel and families. That
    includes the personnel and infrastructure associated with
    providing care. Of that portion, $21 billion is associated with
    the defense health program, which is a $1 billion increase over
    the 2006 level.
        We are very concerned about this area because over the last
    5 years our military health care costs have nearly doubled,
    going from $19 billion in 2001 to $37 billion enacted in 2006.
    Unless action is taken to address this rising cost, the current
    program is projected to increase to $50 billion by 2011 and
    would go to $64 billion by 2015.
        So we are very concerned about these and we have proposed
    in this budget an increase to the fee structure and cost share.
    When the TRICARE program was established by Congress there were
    certain cost shares established. In 1995, as Congress
    established the program 73 percent of the cost was paid by the
    Department of Defense and 27 percent of the cost of the care
    was provided by the beneficiary. Today those cost shares have
    gone to 88 percent for the Department of Defense and 12 percent
    for the beneficiary.
        So the budget is proposing to make some slight increases to
    that cost share for beneficiary. I do have also with me Dr.
    Bill Winkenwerder if there are further questions on that in
    testimony.
        So, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your support of this
    budget. We believe the budget sustains the President's
    commitment to defend the United States, especially against
    catastrophic terrorism, and provides for the security of the
    American people. It continues his strong support of service
    members and their families and it supports the continued shift
    in emphasis away from static posture and forces of the last
    century to highly mobile expeditionary forces needed to prevail
    against adversaries ahead.
        As you know, sir, we also have in front of the Congress a
    $65.3 billion supplemental, and I know that is not the subject
    of today's hearing, but we would be happy to answer questions
    on that as well.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So thank you, sir, for your support and the subcommittee
    for its support of our men and women in uniform.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Tina W. Jonas

        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss President Bush's fiscal year 2007 budget request
    for the Department of Defense.
        I would like to begin by saying thank you to the Committee for your
    continued strong support for the men and women of America's Armed
    Forces and their families. I will briefly summarize some of the more
    important elements of the request.
        The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department
    of Defense is $439.3 billion. This is a seven percent increase over the
    fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $410.8 billion.
        This Committee has jurisdiction over $422.6 billion, which includes
    operation and maintenance, procurement, research and development, and
    military personnel.
        The budget supports the President's 2005 National Security
    Strategy, the long war against terrorist extremists, and the findings
    and recommendations of the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).

                              STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

        Like the QDR, the fiscal year 2007 budget supports the Department's
    continued shift in emphasis--away from the static posture and forces of
    the last century to the highly mobile and expeditionary forces needed
    to prevail against any adversary in the years ahead.
        The budget is aligned with the QDR's strategic priorities and
    invests in the capabilities and forces the Nation needs to:
      --Prevail in irregular warfare operations, including wars of long
            duration, like the global war on terror;
      --Defend the homeland, especially against catastrophic terrorism and
            other advanced threats;
      --Maintain America's military superiority, to ensure our ability to
            deter or defeat threats from other nation-states; and
      --Continue the Department's strong support of our military men and
            women and their families.

                    PREVAIL IN IRREGULAR WARFARE OPERATIONS

        To prevail in irregular warfare operations, the fiscal year 2007
    budget substantially increases the size and capabilities of Special
    Operations Forces, investing $5.1 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $28.7
    billion over the fiscal year 2007 to 2011 program to:
      --Fund an additional 14,000 Special Operations Forces (Special
            Operations Forces will expand from 50,000 in fiscal year 2006
            to 64,000 by fiscal year 2011. This is a growth of 4,000 in
            fiscal year 2007);
      --Increase the number of SOF battalions by 33 percent (Active duty
            battalions will grow from 15 to 20 by fiscal year 2012);
      --Fund a new Marine Corps Special Operations Command;
      --Establish a SOF Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron; and
      --Increase the number of Navy SEAL teams to provide added maritime
            capability.
        To increase Joint combat power, the budget provides $6.6 billion in
    fiscal year 2007 and $40.6 billion over the program, to complete
    conversion of 48 regular Army brigades to 70 modular Brigade Combat
    Teams.
        To continue the modernization and integration of ground forces, and
    produce a swifter, smarter, and more lethal force, the budget provides
    $3.7 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $22.4 billion over the program for
    the Future Combat System.
        Understanding the nature of the battle space on a minute-to-minute
    basis is critical to the success of our forces. The budget provides
    $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $11.6 billion over the program for
    unmanned aerial vehicles to increase U.S. intelligence-gathering
    capabilities and enable persistent, real-time intelligence--24 hours a
    day, seven days a week.
        In addition, to equip our forces with the language and cultural
    skills they will need for 21th century missions, the budget invests
    $181 million in fiscal year 2007 and $760 million over the program to
    expand language training for both general and special operations
    forces.

                              DEFEND THE HOMELAND

        To defend the homeland against 21st century threats, including
    global terror networks and rising states with nuclear weapons, the
    fiscal year 2007 budget provides:
      --$1.7 billion in fiscal year 2007, and $9.3 billion over the program
            to develop countermeasures against advanced biological and
            other weapons, and to tag, track, locate and render-safe
            nuclear weapons;
      --$10.4 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $47.5 billion over the
            program to produce and field additional ground and sea-based
            interceptors to defend against intercontinental and theater
            ballistic missiles; and
      --$0.9 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $9.3 billion over the program
            to dramatically increase and extend satellite communications
            capabilities to our deployed forces around the world.

                       MAINTAIN U.S. MILITARY SUPERIORITY

        While the focus in the years ahead will be on irregular warfare
    operations rather than another major conventional war, the United
    States must maintain the ability to deter or defeat the conventional
    forces of other nations.
        The Department continues to maintain a robust procurement program.
    The budget invests $84.2 billion in fiscal year 2007. This is an
    increase of $8 billion over the fiscal year 2006 level.
        To improve joint air support capabilities, maintain and improve
    joint air dominance, and improve the maritime capabilities of the joint
    force, the budget invests:
      --$4.7 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $27.1 billion over the
            program, to purchase additional Apache, Chinook, and Black Hawk
            helicopters as well as the V-22 Osprey;
      --$10.4 billion in fiscal year 2007, and $61.3 billion over the
            program, to acquire more capable weapons systems--such as the
            F-22, the F/A-18 E/F, and the first procurement of the Joint
            Strike Fighter; and
      --$11.2 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $77.5 billion over the
            program for seven new multi-mission, multi-capable ships: two
            Destroyers (DDX), two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), one Virginia
            Class Submarine (SSN), one Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA(R)),
            and one Logistics Ship (T-AKE).

                 SUPPORTING SERVICE MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES

        Because success in everything we do depends on the skill and
    dedication of the men and women who safeguard the freedom we enjoy
    every day, the fiscal year 2007 budget continues the Department's
    strong commitment to provide a high quality of life for those who serve
    and their families.

                                  MILITARY PAY

        One demonstration of that commitment is military pay. Since 2001,
    basic military pay has increased 29 percent. In fiscal year 2007, basic
    pay will rise another 2.2 percent over the fiscal year 2006 level.
        That means an Army Sergeant (E-6) with 14 years of service, for
    example, will earn $779 more in fiscal year 2007 than he or she did in
    fiscal year 2006, and $8,893 more than in 2001.
        A typical Air Force captain (0-3) will earn $1,188 more in fiscal
    year 2007 than in fiscal year 2006, and $11,347 more than in fiscal
    year 2001.
        To ensure no out-of-pocket housing costs for military families
    living off-base, the budget increases the basic allowance for housing
    by an average rate of 5.9 percent.

                              MILITARY HEALTH CARE

        High-quality health care is another important benefit for service
    personnel and their families. The Department's health care program,
    TRICARE, provides one of the best health care coverage programs in the
    Nation.
        The budget provides $39 billion in fiscal year 2007 to provide
    health care for military personnel and their families. This includes
    $21 billion for the Defense Health Program--a $1 billion increase over
    the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
        In fact, over the past five years, the full cost to provide
    military health care has nearly doubled--from $19 billion in fiscal
    year 2001 to $37 billion enacted in fiscal year 2006. Unless action is
    taken to address the rising cost of care, the current program is
    projected to increase to $50 billion by fiscal year 2011.
        Clearly, these rising costs cannot be sustained over the long term.
    Therefore, to place the health benefit on a sound fiscal basis for the
    long term, the Department is proposing to rebalance the share of costs
    between individuals and the government. The budget proposes to adjust
    the cost share for working-age retirees under 65. This change will not
    affect active duty service personnel and their families, except for
    minimal changes to pharmacy co-payments for family members.
        In 1995, as established by Congress, 73 percent of the cost was
    paid by the Department of Defense; 27 percent of the cost was paid by
    the beneficiary. Today, 88 percent of the cost is paid by the
    Department of Defense; and just 12 percent by the beneficiary.
        The budget proposes to gradually adjust these shares to less than
    the 1995 cost-share level.

                 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET

        The Quadrennial Defense Review is the result of an extensive, year-
    long review of U.S. military capabilities and forces. The QDR
    identified strategic priorities for added investment, and the fiscal
    year 2007 budget initiates the process of funding those priorities.
        The budget sustains the President's commitment to defend the United
    States, especially against catastrophic terrorism, and provide for the
    security of the American people. It continues the Department's strong
    support of service members and their families, and it supports the
    Department of Defense's continued shift in emphasis--away from the
    static posture and forces of the last century, to the highly mobile and
    expeditionary forces needed to prevail against any adversary in the
    years ahead.

                                  SUPPLEMENTAL

        The President recently submitted a request for a fiscal year 2006
    supplemental appropriation. The Department of Defense's portion of this
    request is $65.3 billion, which will fund ongoing military operations
    in Afghanistan and Iraq, and other incremental costs of the global war
    on terror.
        The Department appreciates the Committee's prompt passage of
    previous supplemental requests, and we request your support for this
    one as well. Approval of the supplemental request will enable the
    Department to fund war-related costs for the rest of this fiscal year.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Admiral, do you have any comments to make?

                                     BUDGET

        Admiral Chanik. Chairman Stevens, just a couple comments
    that I will add to Ms. Jonas's if that is okay. First, sir, I
    thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak to you today
    in reference to the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request
    for the Department of Defense.
        What I will do, since Ms. Jonas has pretty much captured
    the essence of the budget, is just add a couple words. From a
    warfighter's perspective, we believe that this is a budget that
    represents a balance of near-term risk versus long-term risk,
    that the services and the Combatant Command (COCOMs) worked
    hard on to weigh current readiness, the global war on terror,
    and investments in transformational initiatives for the future
    fight.
        We think it provides a budget for the armed forces that
    allows the armed forces to be fully capable of executing our
    national military strategy and that it supports the chairman's
    priorities of winning the war on terrorism, of accelerating
    transformation, of strengthening joint warfighting, and of
    improving the quality of life for our troops and their
    families.
        As Ms. Jonas mentioned in her opening statement, we think
    it provides, continues to provide, strong support for today's
    fighting forces, that it invests in the capabilities we need to
    have to prevail in irregular warfare operations and in defense
    of the homeland.
        What I would like to underline and reemphasize, because she
    did speak to it in quite a bit of detail, are the thoughts on
    the proposal with reference to the health program. We think
    that this proposal takes some vital and important steps in
    renorming some of those fees for a superb military health care
    system. I would like to underline the fact that this affects
    those retirees under the age of 65 primarily and does not
    affect our active duty service personnel and their families.
    But as you have heard, the Chairman, the Joint Chiefs, and the
    Secretary are all behind this important proposal.
        I will close by thanking you and your subcommittee for your
    continued support to our men and women in uniform. As you are
    well aware, they are doing tremendous work around the world in
    some very difficult circumstances, and they certainly
    appreciate what you and your subcommittee and what Congress
    provides to them.
        I look forward to your questions, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you both very much. I am saddened
    that I am here alone today.
        I think we will face substantial controversy when we get to
    the floor with this bill, primarily by people who want to add
    to it. I will ask you some questions about that. I think what I
    will do is, with your consent, would be just submit some of
    these questions, the ones that should be, just as matters for
    the record. I will submit them to you and ask you to respond to
    them. I do not know if Senator Inouye would have similar ones,
    but if he does we will do that.
        Ms. Jonas. Certainly.
        Senator Stevens. I am going to make a rule from now on, we
    are not going to seek answers to questions from Senators who do
    not attend the session unless there is a reason such as the
    good co-chairman has today. But I do believe more people should
    come to these hearings and should pursue their questions here
    before they present amendments on the floor.

                           END STRENGTH OF ARMY GUARD

        We heard about a recent agreement that you are going to
    fund the Army Guard at a strength of 350,000 soldiers for 2007.
    Is that in the budget? Is that amount covered by the budget?
        Ms. Jonas. Senator Stevens, what is in the budget is an
    amount for 333,000. If I can explain, that is the amount, the
    number, that they were currently at. The Congress has
    authorized 350,000. In prior years they have not made their
    number and so that has resulted in a little bit of funds
    available for other purposes and so we have reprogrammed those.
        But it is the Army's intent to fund the number that the
    Guard can reach. So we will make sure that that is done. We
    will work very closely, Mr. Chairman, with that.
        Senator Stevens. Are you going to do that through
    reprogramming, or how are we going to get to that figure?
        Ms. Jonas. In the past, sir, when we have had an overage--
    and this has happened in prior years--we have reprogrammed
    funds. We did so last year when they did not reach the 350,000.
    I think there was about $347 million available. But my
    expectation is that we would work with the Army to reprogram
    funds.

                                 SPECIAL FORCES

        Senator Stevens. A similar question with regard to the
    special forces capabilities. It is our understanding that there
    is going to be a significant increase in those forces
    capabilities. Are any of those capabilities funded in this
    request?
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I noted in my testimony,
    we increased about 4,000, by about 4,000 in this 2007 budget
    and about 14,000----
        Senator Stevens. I heard that, but is the money in here for
    that?
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir. We are about $1 billion over where we
    were for special forces last year.
        Senator Stevens. You are going to increase them by 13,000
    over 5 years and there is 2,000 in this year's budget?
        Ms. Jonas. We are increasing the number by 4,000 in fiscal
    year 2007 and 14,000 over the program period, sir.

                                COSTS OF THE WAR

        Senator Stevens. We have discussed the problem of
    sustainability and I mentioned that. Now, it is our
    understanding, my staff tells me, that this bill before us now
    funds military operations at the current level, which is
    roughly $6.8 billion a month as we understand it, for the
    global war on terror. If that is correct, are we not looking at
    a supplemental just going in for that portion of this
    operation, these operations of the Department?
        Ms. Jonas. Mr. Chairman, the request before the Congress
    right now for the supplemental, the DOD portion of it, which
    excludes the intelligence funding, is $65.3 billion. So the
    rate that you are discussing, the $6.8 billion what is referred
    to as a burn rate, was what we had for the prior year, for
    fiscal year 2005. We expect there to be some increase due to
    increases in fuel costs. Our personnel are going to be a little
    bit more expensive because of the addition of death benefits,
    for example. There also is a little bit of inflation.
        In addition, we have costs for reset, what we call reset
    and reconstitution. So it will be a little bit higher than $6.8
    billion, we expect, in fiscal year 2006.
        Senator Stevens. I am told again by my staff that there is
    some sort of an amendment that we are going to look at which
    deals with a bridge, a $50 billion bridge. Bridges, I do not
    like to talk about bridges, coming from where I come from. But
    this one is from A to B.
        Why do you need a bridge in addition to this bill?
        Ms. Jonas. The bridge fund or the request for fiscal year
    2007--we have got in front of you a 2006 supplemental and what
    the administration is proposing for 2007 is an additional
    bridge fund of $50 billion. We will provide----
        Senator Stevens. $50 billion?
        Ms. Jonas. For 2007, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Will that be the supplemental for 2007?
        Ms. Jonas. It will be, yes, sir, a portion. We do not know
    exactly how much we are going to need, but the administration
    wanted to make sure, so that it could count against the overall
    budget concerns of the Congress, that we would at least have
    some of that counted for deficit projection purposes.
        Senator Stevens. How soon do you need the 2006 funding?
        Ms. Jonas. Mr. Chairman, we believe that we need those
    funds by the end of April, no later. We do not have sufficient
    operation and maintenance (O&M) dollars to get us through May.
        Senator Stevens. The supplemental that there was a hearing
    on this morning, we have got a hearing every day this week, I
    think, that is for 2006, right?
        Ms. Jonas. That is correct, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Are we going to include any portion of the
    2007 bridge in that one?
        Ms. Jonas. No, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Do we expect that, though, to come in
    before the end of this fiscal year, to have a bridge to 2007?
        Ms. Jonas. That is our expectation, sir.
        Senator Stevens. And am I led to believe that is $25
    billion?
        Ms. Jonas. $50 billion.
        Senator Stevens. No, you have got that $50 billion already,
    do you not?
        Ms. Jonas. Sir, we have $50 billion from the prior--
    actually, we have $45 billion from your prior action, so the
    bridge supplemental that you recently approved and we are
    executing.
        Senator Stevens. That is for 2006?
        Ms. Jonas. Yes. And so in addition to that, we are asking
    for the $65.3 billion which is before you now for fiscal year
    2006.
        Senator Stevens. You are anticipating $50 billion for 2007?
        Ms. Jonas. Correct, sir.
        Senator Stevens. When are we going to start folding these
    into the regular bill?
        Ms. Jonas. Mr. Chairman, I will answer that in the way that
    the Secretary has. He is fully open to doing it either way. The
    concern that many of us have is that we cannot provide the type
    of detail that is normally wanted by the Congress. For example,
    when we develop the request before you we actually plug in the
    deployment orders into our cost modeling, so that provides a
    level of exactness that you cannot get with some of the types
    of projections on the $50 billion.
        But I certainly understand your concerns, Mr. Chairman. I
    know the Secretary does. But that would really be something
    that needs to be worked out, I think, between the congressional
    leadership and the Office of Management and Budget with respect
    to the use of supplementals.
        Senator Stevens. Well, I am concerned because some of the
    things that are in the regular bill for 2007 are related to the
    war on terror, are they not?
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. And the $50 billion is exclusively,
    theoretically, for the war on terror?
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. But when we were in Iraq and we went out
    to Fallujah and we saw the trucks that were there being up-
    armored, that money was paid for out of the supplemental,
    right?
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. But it was really a routine matter that is
    going to go on all over the Department, but just those in Iraq
    were paid for out of the supplemental?
        Ms. Jonas. I would have to get to your specific, at what
    you were looking at specifically. But we have equipment that--
    --
        Senator Stevens. I am just using that as an example.
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. I think these things blend--we think we
    are controlling expenses, but up here we have got a feather
    pillow that just goes wherever you want to put it and it does
    not make any difference what we try to do to try to get some
    control over some of these expenses.
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir. We try to the best that we can to
    track what is spent in theater. We do have reporting to the
    Congress that we provide. As a general matter, the overhaul and
    the wear and tear on the equipment that is being used in
    theater is being funded or rehabbed out of supplemental funds.
    Maybe Marty wants to talk to this a bit, but we are doing the
    best we can to try to give the Congress some clarity on that,
    sir.

                                  CONTRACTING

        Senator Stevens. Well, who makes the decision when to out-
    source an activity? Admiral?
        Admiral Chanik. Yes, sir. Can you clarify that question? I
    am not sure I have exactly what you mean when you talk about
    out-sourcing activity.
        Senator Stevens. They have got enormous contracts over
    there, food servicing, repair of vehicles, so many different
    things that we saw. Who makes the decision that those things
    cannot be done by people in uniform in the regular course of
    appropriations?
        Admiral Chanik. Sir, I will have to get back to you to see
    exactly who does that. That certainly is the commander in
    theater and his staff that is going to work through those
    issues and determine the best way to provide the requirements
    to support the soldiers, the sailors, airmen, marines on the
    ground. So they will work through that staff. They certainly
    have multiple regulations they comply with to go through that.
        But who exactly in that chain in the logistics side, we can
    certainly provide that for you if you would like, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        When determining outsourcing needs, the combatant commander
    allows Service components to create outsourced logistical
    support in their respectively assigned areas, consistent with
    Service regulations and authorities. Service components then
    develop and tailor outsourcing initiatives in their respective
    areas of responsibility (AORs). For example, there are more
    than 40,000 contractors in the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM)
    AOR performing functions in the combat support and combat
    service support arenas. Specific support functions currently
    contracted under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program
    (LOGCAP) include: (1) Theater Transportation Mission; (2) Corps
    Logistical Service Support; (3) Army Oil Analysis Program; (4)
    Embassy Support, Baghdad; (5) Test Measurements Diagnostic
    Equipment; (6) Base Operations for U.S. Personnel; and (7)
    Subsistence (Dining Facilities operation).

        Senator Stevens. We are getting more and more questions, as
    I said to Ms. Jonas, from Members of the Senate about the out-
    sourcing and who makes the decision and who decides what the
    level of commitment will be and where does that money come
    from. I really think you are going to have to help us get some
    details here on how these decisions are made and what level of
    control there is over out-sourcing as compared to the control
    we have over regular expenditures through the Department's
    normal procedures.
        Admiral Chanik. Yes, sir. We can certainly do that. I can
    assure you that in theater when they look at the alternatives
    of how to supply a particular capability, whether it is out-
    sourced or whether it is organic to the forces in theater, they
    will look at that and determine what is the best way to achieve
    what they need to achieve in the time that they have to do that
    at the best cost. They will have a certain set of rules to go
    through that. But we can get you more detail, sir, and provide
    that to you.
        [The information follows:]

        The combatant commander allows Service components to create
    outsourced logistical support in their respectively assigned
    countries. Service components then develop and tailor
    outsourcing initiatives in their respective areas of
    responsibility consistent with Service regulations and
    authorities. Specifically, outsourcing initiatives are
    regulated by set guidelines. These regulations include: (1) 10
    USC 129a, which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to use
    civilian contracting if it is financially beneficial and
    consistent with military requirements; (2) Department of
    Defense Directive 1100.4, ``Guidance for Manpower Management'',
    which directs that assigned missions shall be accomplished
    using the least costly mix of personnel (military/civilian/
    contractor) consistent with military requirements; (3)
    Department of Defense Instruction 3020.37, ``Continuation of
    Essential DOD Contractor Services During Crises'', which states
    that DOD components shall rely on the most effective mix of the
    total force, cost, and other factors, including contract
    resources necessary to fulfill assigned missions; and (4) Army
    Regulation 700-137, which established policies,
    responsibilities, and procedures for the implementation of the
    Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP). The LOGCAP
    objective is to preplan for the use of civilian contractors to
    perform selected services in wartime to augment Army forces.

                              FUNDING FOR VETERANS

        Senator Stevens. One of the questions we have been asked so
    far or told so far is going to be raised is the adequacy of
    funding for veterans under this bill. I am told there will be
    an amendment to add funds for veterans. What funding is already
    in this bill that covers veterans activities?
        Ms. Jonas. The Department of Veterans Affairs does provide
    the funding for that. I am unaware of any funding in the
    supplemental for that. We can certainly get back to you for the
    record, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        The Department of Veterans Affairs provides the funding for
    veterans benefits.
        The fiscal year 2007 President's Budget request for the
    Department of Defense does not include any funding for veterans
    benefits. However, the Defense portion of the President's
    fiscal year 2006 supplemental appropriations request for
    ongoing military and intelligence operations in support of
    Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and
    selected other international activities does include about $0.9
    billion in funds to reimburse the Department of Veterans
    Affairs for casualty and disability benefits. These funds are
    included in the amounts requested for the Department's military
    personnel appropriations and include $0.4 billion for
    reimbursement of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI)
    claims and $0.5 billion for reimbursement for claims associated
    with the SGLI Traumatic Injury Protection program proposed by
    the President and enacted as part of Emergency Supplemental
    Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
    Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13).

        Senator Stevens. We understand that, but I understand that
    this bill will be the target of additions for funding of
    veterans, particularly those that are coming out of this
    current involvement in Iraq. Is there any money for veterans in
    the supplemental to your knowledge?
        Ms. Jonas. Sir, I would have to get back to you for the
    record. Not to my knowledge, sir.

                              FUNDING FLEXIBILITY

        Senator Stevens. I am told that the services have expressed
    concerns about the lack of flexibility to fund emerging
    requirements or cash flow for combat operations if the basic
    allowance for housing and facilities, sustainment, restoration,
    and modernization funding are pro-rated in the Military Quality
    of Life and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. As you know,
    this comes about because of the separation in the House now.
        Is there a problem there? Can you give us your assessment
    of the impact of this change in terms of the operations of the
    Department?
        Ms. Jonas. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, it will change the way
    we have to work with the Congress and it may limit our ability
    to transfer funds between certain accounts. For example, the
    sustainment accounts we will not be able to access for
    reprogramming or cash flowing purposes. So there are some
    limitations, but we will work carefully with the Congress to
    make sure that we can meet the requirements. But it does cause
    some constraints that we have not experienced in the past and
    will limit our flexibility to a degree.
        Senator Stevens. I will submit the balance of that
    question, then. That is really a technical question as I see
    it. I do not know how we are going to get through--this is the
    first year when that separation is going to take place.
        We did have to make a reduction overall on the bill last
    year of a 1 percent reduction. Have you determined how that
    impacts your budget with regard to the various functions, such
    as military personnel?
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It has caused some
    difficulties in the military personnel accounts. For example,
    we are working through an issue with the Navy right now in
    trying to execute this budget. We expect to have to reprogram
    some funds. So that has caused some little bit of difficulty in
    certain accounts.
        Senator Stevens. Are those attributable to the war on
    terror or are they routine impacts on the overall bill because
    of the 1 percent?
        Ms. Jonas. My understanding is that these are routine
    impacts. You mentioned the basic allowance for housing, for
    example. Those surveys to assess how much we actually provide
    are done later in the budget year and so that has also caused a
    little bit of a difficulty for the Navy. But the 1 percent has
    caused us some issue within the baseline.
        Senator Stevens. What kind of detail do you provide--now,
    we have gone through 2005 and we had both the basic bill and
    the supplemental in 2005. Have you filed either with OMB or
    with the authorization committee an as-spent type of budget? Do
    we know how that money was actually spent?
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir, we do provide, I believe, to the
    committees on a routine basis--and I will have to check with my
    folks----
        Senator Stevens. I do not mean--I mean a closeout for the
    year. Can we compare how we thought the money was going to be
    spent and how it was actually spent?
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir. That can be done, and we do provide
    what are called 1002 accounts. It is an accounting report of
    how funds were spent, sir.
        Senator Stevens. We will submit the rest of the questions,
    Ms. Jonas and Admiral. But I have got to tell you, as I said, I
    left that budget discussion and the projections out into the
    future on how this current trend is adjusted, assuming we do
    complete our actions in Iraq and still have the war on terror.
    The presumption is that we would have a bill that would cover
    the Department's operations and we would no longer have
    supplementals; is that a reasonable assumption?

                                     COSTS

        Admiral Chanik. Yes, sir. I think we have certain costs,
    obviously, as you are well aware now, with the efforts in
    Afghanistan, the efforts in Iraq, and those bring costs
    associated with them. Once those drop off, then I think that we
    have a much better chance of getting away from supplementals.
        I would also mention to you that one of our assumptions, as
    I think you are well aware, is that as we reset and
    reconstitute the force based on all that we have done in Iraq
    and Afghanistan, that there are still some dollars associated
    with that and that we will be requesting some supplementals to
    help in that reset of the force since we cannot really quantify
    that at the moment.
        But that is something that the chiefs have brought up in
    some of their testimony, that there will be some costs directly
    attributable to what we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, even
    when those drop down to a steady state normal operating pace.
        Senator Stevens. Well, we are going to schedule some
    discussions with the Armed Services Committee. I have the
    feeling that one of the reasons that we do not have people here
    is they really do not know what questions to ask. We are
    getting just these gross figures and gross demands and we are
    not really getting a handle on what controls there are on
    either.
        If you look at the trend line I just looked at from 2001 to
    now, the total amount for the Department is more than double
    what it was in 2001. We are lacking in the capability to assess
    the rationale for those increases and to determine whether they
    are actually necessary. I really think we are going to be in
    for some real problems, particularly on this year's amounts,
    because we are looking at the bridge amount and then we are
    looking at another supplemental for 2007 once we are in that.
    It is very difficult for us to tell people, yes, we have gone
    over these accounts and these are accounts we understand,
    because we do not have the detail to know what they are.
        Ms. Jonas. Sir, we would be happy to provide as much detail
    as this subcommittee needs to assess the request in front of
    you. I will say, as we mentioned earlier, what I am concerned
    about is the cost, the rising cost of personnel. If you think
    about what we are spending on healthcare, for example, we are
    spending $2 billion more than Germany spends for its entire
    defense budget, on healthcare.
        We have mentioned the issue of other benefits that are
    important for our families that get added. But as you look at
    why our costs have increased over time, I would suggest that in
    the personnel area that is one area.
        Certainly in the area of acquisition there are studies that
    have been undertaken on acquisition and we need to do what we
    can to control overruns, cost overruns on weapon systems. That
    is a key area.
        But you should know, with respect to accountability and
    understanding what we are doing with funds, just to give you an
    example, the Defense Contract Audit Agency reviews $320 billion
    worth of contracts annually. They do 40,000 audits annually. So
    they are just one of the audit entities that we have working in
    the Department.
        I understand your concern and the Congress' concern about
    how funds are spent, accountability for those large increases
    that you noted, and we do take it seriously and we have got
    some terrific, dedicated professionals working on that, sir.
        Senator Stevens. I look forward to some discussions because
    the real--some of the questions that are coming at us,
    particularly in the area of out-sourcing--when there is out-
    sourcing, when these functions are performed by military
    personnel or by civilian personnel in the Department, there are
    guidelines and there are precedents as far as what is spent.
    When it is out-sourced, we have had questions about what is the
    level of control on a contractor spending money to do the
    functions that otherwise would have been done by the military.
    It does not appear to be within the budget that the military
    would have done the job.
        Admiral?

                                   OVERSIGHT

        Admiral Chanik. Sir, the only thing I guess I can add to
    that, I think as we mentioned earlier perhaps we need to be
    able to come back or take a question for the record to give you
    more detail that you want on that. I know it is certainly an
    area that the services are very concerned about. In fact, there
    is going to be established an inspector general, an inspector
    general office, in Qatar to help in terms of oversight on some
    of these issues. So it is getting a tremendous amount of
    attention to review the rules and regulations of how these
    decisions are made and how the out-sourcing occurs.
        But I think the best thing is if we can take some questions
    for the record, sir, and we will come back with some better
    detail than that general comment.
        Senator Stevens. All right. Well, just look at it this way.
    We will have dealt with $120 billion this year for which we
    have no justification at all. It is emergency spending in
    supplementals. Those are the areas that we are going to get the
    questions on and I believe that those are the areas where
    questions ought to be raised.
        As Ms. Ashworth said, we do not have justification books on
    them, nor do we have any post-expenditure explanations that I
    know of. I think we are going to start getting questions we
    cannot answer, and once we cannot answer them we do not get a
    bill.
        So I hope that you will really consider what information we
    can have about how this money is going to be spent and what
    controls there are on its being spent, okay?
        Ms. Jonas. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is
    that we provide quarterly reports on the expenditure of the
    funds.
        Senator Stevens. That is in gross. We have got that. Yes,
    we have got, we spent x billion dollars.
        Ms. Jonas. Okay. I believe that we provide account-level
    detail, but we will provide this subcommittee whatever it needs
    to properly assess the proper expenditure of funds and the
    requests before you, sir.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Stevens. Again, I am sad that the other people are
    not here. We will submit the questions and will ask Senator
    Inouye if he wishes to submit any.
        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 by Senator Ted Stevens

                          BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING

        Question. The Services have expressed concern about the lack of
    flexibility to fund emergent requirements or to cash flow combat
    operations if Basic Allowance for Housing and Facilities Sustainment,
    Restoration and Modernization funding are appropriated in the Military
    Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill for fiscal
    year 2007. Please explain the impact this change will have on budget
    execution with the Department?
        Answer. The reorganization of the Department of Defense (DOD) and
    the Military Construction Appropriations Bills poses significant
    financial management challenges for the Department. As proposed, the
    reorganization moves the following programs out of the DOD
    Appropriations Bill into a new Military Quality of Life and Veterans
    Affairs Bill:
      --Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (FSRM)
            (Currently, generally funded as part of the Services'
            Operations and Maintenance appropriations.)
      --Defense Health Program (DHP)
      --Environmental Programs (Currently funded in transfer accounts; most
            of the funds are transferred to the Services' Operations and
            Maintenance accounts for execution.)
      --Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
        Splitting the Operation and Maintenance and Military Personnel
    appropriations into two bills: creates suboptimal tradeoffs within each
    of the separate bills; constrains the Department's ability to react to
    emergent execution requirements; and adds additional administrative
    burdens on both DOD and congressional staffs.
        The Military Construction Appropriations Bill does not include
    general transfer authority. Year of execution cost increases for BAH or
    medical care would require the Department to submit supplemental
    appropriations requests to the Congress.
        At a minimum, DOD must have the authority to: transfer funds
    between and among the appropriations included in the final Acts;
    increase DOD's General Transfer Authority; and transfer from/to the
    Foreign Currency Fluctuation appropriations to offset foreign currency
    losses resulting from a decline in the market value of the U.S. dollar.
        Providing authority to transfer funds between and among the
    appropriations included in the final Acts and increasing DOD's General
    Transfer Authority, will help mitigate, but not solve issues 1 and 2
    above. For example:
      --DOD Contingency Operations.--The new bill structure will make it
            more difficult to finance contingency operations, such as
            Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, because
            historically Commanders use Facilities Sustainment, Repair and
            Modernization (FSRM) funding to cash flow critical war fighter
            needs until a supplemental is received.
          During fiscal year 2005, the Department cash flowed significant
            percentage of the FSRM funds to finance operational
            requirements. Any delay in enactment of the supplemental will
            make it more difficult to execute the Global War on Terror
            (GWOT).
      --BAH.--Annual funding of BAH fluctuates based on a number of
            factors, including the number of military personnel, grade
            structure, dependency rates and the availability of military
            housing. In addition, to provide Service members with the most
            accurate allowance possible, BAH rates are set outside of the
            budget cycle.
        --At present, due to the large size of the military personnel
                appropriations (over $100 billion), the Department has
                managed BAH fluctuations within the current appropriation
                structure.
        --If transfer authority between appropriations and across
                appropriations Acts is not provided, DOD would have to seek
                supplemental funds to avoid any pay problems for our
                military members and their families.
        --Even if transfer authority is provided, DOD would need to
                formally reprogram funds causing delays and possible pay
                problems if shortfalls are realized late in the year. It
                also increases the risk of pay errors due to payment of
                military personnel from duplicative accounting
                infrastructure required for BAH and other military
                compensation.
        --None of the current military pay and accounting systems has the
                functionality to properly pay the BAH from a separate
                account. Time to make the changes depends on the system and
                the complexity of the change. At a minimum, it will require
                6 months from the time when all requirements are known.
        Question. I understand that rate changes in Basic Allowance for
    Housing have caused significant bills for the Services, particularly
    the Navy. Can you explain how the Department would fund these
    requirements if Basic Allowance for Housing is funded in the Military
    Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill?
        Answer. The current unfunded fiscal year 2006 estimate for the BAH
    program is over $800 million. This is due to both an increase in
    inflation after the fiscal year 2006 President's Budget was submitted,
    and the impact of congressional reductions in fiscal year 2006.
        How the Department would fund these requirements depends on the
    flexibility provided in the law for reprogramming funds. In the past,
    BAH shortfalls have often been financed from within the military
    personnel appropriations due to variances in force level execution (the
    number of personnel, or the mix of personnel by officer/enlisted and by
    grade).
        If flexibility is provided to reprogram between the Defense
    Appropriations Bill and the Military Quality of Life Appropriations
    Bill, the Department would more than likely reprogram resources from
    the military personnel appropriations; if additional resources are
    required, other programs would be considered. If there is no
    flexibility to reprogram from outside the Military Quality of Life and
    Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill, and general transfer authority is
    provided to reprogram resources among Quality of Life accounts, then
    Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (FSRM) funding
    would likely be the source. If no general transfer authority is
    provided, the Department would be forced to submit a supplemental
    appropriations request.
        Even if transfer authority between appropriations and across
    appropriations acts is provided, the proposed realignment would require
    the Department to formally reprogram funds causing delays and possible
    pay problems if shortfalls are realized late in the year.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                                CORROSION COSTS

        Question. Since the return on investment is so great and the annual
    costs of corrosion so high, why is the Department of Defense reducing
    this budget and recommending only $13 million for the corrosion
    prevention and control?
        Answer. The Department of Defense agrees that significant funding
    for corrosion prevention and mitigation is warranted. The Congressional
    mandate manifested in 10 U.S.C. 2228 requiring the corrosion prevention
    and mitigation program has illuminated the problem and drawn the
    attention of a much wider audience throughout DOD. However, we must be
    judicious in determining the size of the investment. The Global War on
    Terrorism, international and national disasters, and other high
    priority competing programs have severely stretched the DOD budget. The
    DOD Corrosion Prevention and Control Strategic Plan, our long term
    strategy, depicts an integrated approach in preventing and mitigating
    corrosion of DOD's weapons systems and infrastructures. This approach
    entails R&D; training; outreach and communications; specifications,
    standards and qualification processes; policy and requirements;
    facilities; and cost of corrosion and other metrics. Funding specific
    projects with high and measurable ROIs is just one of the several
    approaches identified in our Strategic Plan to combat corrosion.
    Therefore, the current level of investment is appropriate as we
    continue to validate the projected return on the $27 million investment
    in the fiscal year 2005 and the $14 million investment in the DOD
    Corrosion Program. It is critical to our continued success to show
    quantitatively and objectively that the projected cost avoidance
    associated with our corrosion projects is real and demonstrable. We
    plan to continue supporting science and technology investment in
    corrosion understanding and prevention technologies to maintain a
    supply of transitionable research products for current and future
    forces.
        Question. Can we expect to see an increase in corrosion funding in
    the future, so we can take advantage of potential savings?
        Answer. We will evaluate the results of the cost of corrosion
    baseline study and the results of funded corrosion prevention and
    control projects with other Department requirements. The Under
    Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) is
    evaluating the requirements in consideration for the next budget cycle.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Stevens. If there is nothing further, the
    subcommittee will stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., Tuesday, March 7, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006

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

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             Department of the Navy

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID C. WINTER, SECRETARY
                OF THE NAVY
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            ADMIRAL MICHAEL G. MULLEN, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
            GENERAL MICHAEL W. HAGEE, COMMANDANT, MARINE CORPS

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. My apologies, gentlemen. I had a visit
    from one of the youth commissions in my State, that had a few
    questions. I hope you've got the answers. We're pleased to
    welcome the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval
    Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps today, to
    discuss the fiscal year 2007 budget.
        Secretary Winter, Admiral Mullen, this is your first
    appearance before the subcommittee and the co-chairman and I,
    and our whole subcommittee welcome both of you.
        The Department of the Navy budget request for fiscal year
    2007 is $127.3 billion. Approximately $4.4 billion above the
    level we provided last year, excluding supplementals.
        We look forward to hearing about your priorities for these
    funds, and about the current status of the Navy and the Marine
    Corps, and we're also interested in the recent four structure
    changes, such as stand up of the new Marine Corps Special
    Operations Command, and the new Riverine Force. We hope you
    will share with us some of the challenges facing the Navy and
    Marine Corps team. And such as the need to reconstitute the
    force after returning from operations in the war theatre.
        As always, your statements will appear in the record in
    full, as though read. Let me turn to other Members here, to see
    if they have any opening statements.
        Mr. Chairman.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    gentlemen. I join my chairman in showing our appreciation that
    you've joined us today to testify before this subcommittee. Mr.
    Secretary and Admiral Mullen, we welcome you for your first
    appearance before this subcommittee and General Hagee, it's
    always good to see you. Sir, welcome back.
        Mr. Secretary, you and your military partners present a
    shared vision for the Navy and Marine Corps. One that seeks to
    modernize your forces while bringing the marines and Navy into
    a closer and more efficient partnership. Admiral, we recognize
    your requirement to modernize the fleet, to ensure that we do
    not continue to reduce the number of ships.
        General Hagee, we also see the need to rebuild our marine
    forces as they return to duty from Iraq. We hope to learn today
    how you will balance these modernization goals, while still
    providing sufficient funding to steam your ships, train your
    pilots, support the quality of life programs, such as military
    healthcare that are very vital to retention.
        Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, this is a challenging
    period for our military forces. They are being called upon
    increasingly to serve in harm's way. At the same time, the
    Defense Department has adopted policies which either reduce
    their forces, or increase commitments within the same force
    structure. We know these policies could strain our marines and
    Navy if they are not implemented with great care.
        Gentlemen, this is a tough assignment. We appreciate that
    you've joined us today and look forward to the meaningful
    discussion on balancing the needs of our maritime forces within
    budget limits.
        Thank you, very much. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Chairman of the full Committee.

         PREPARED STATEMENTS OF SENATORS THAD COCHRAN AND CONRAD BURNS

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to put a
    statement in the record. Thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. Same with me, Mr. Chairman. I think we want
    to hear from the witnesses today.
        [The statements follow:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran

        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to welcome Secretary Winter,
    Admiral Mullen, and General Hagee to this hearing. We
    appreciate your cooperation with this committee as we review
    the requests for appropriations for the Navy and Marine Corps.
    We also appreciate the response to the needs of disaster
    victims in the Gulf Coast region in the wake of Hurricane
    Katrina. I'd also like to thank General Hagee for the Marines'
    outstanding support provided to Mississippi's 155th Separate
    Armor Brigade while they were deployed to the Anbar Province
    and attached to the Second Marine Expeditionary Force.
        I join you, Mr. Chairman, in praising the performance of
    our military forces. They reflect great credit upon our
    country. We continue to keep them in our prayers as they
    maintain their legacy of sacrifice and service.
                                    ------

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Winter, Admiral Mullen,
    General Hagee.
        First of all, I want to congratulate you for the tremendous
    service that your sailors and Marines are providing to win this
    war on terror. Our sailors and Marines are deployed all over
    the world. These great Americans are carrying the weight for
    our nation.
        In fact the future of the Middle East rests in the battle
    tested hands of your young men and women who now serve all over
    the world. We have a unique opportunity to bring stability to
    an area of the world that has not known peace in generations.
    This opportunity will not come again. We must do everything we
    can to ensure that our courageous men and women have the tools
    they need to succeed around the world.

        Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, we're pleased to have your
    statement.
        Mr. Winter. The Chairman, Senator Inouye, members of the
    subcommittee----
        Senator Stevens. Can you pull that mic back toward you a
    little bit, Mr. Secretary? Thank you.
        Mr. Winter. Thank you for the opportunity you've given the
    Navy and Marine Corps team to appear before this subcommittee.
    But before I start, I would like to express my deepest sympathy
    to Senator Inouye and his family on behalf of the entire
    Department of the Navy. Sir, you have our deepest sympathies.
        Now today, I'm joined by Admiral Mullen and General Hagee,
    and I could not ask for better, more honorable teammates. It is
    a true pleasure to work with them. Now each of us has provided
    a statement to this subcommittee and I appreciate the inclusion
    of those statements into the record.
        These documents outline in detail, this Department's
    priorities. Our top priorities are clear. We must prosecute the
    global war on terror today, while deterring potential
    adversaries and reset the force for tomorrow.
        Mr. Chairman, let me be blunt: We are a nation at war.
    Support for sailors and marines in the Iraqi theatre of
    operations is our most urgent task, and I am focused daily on
    what the Navy and Marine Corps can do to help achieve victory
    in Iraq and against terrorists elsewhere around the globe.
        I am now in my third month as Secretary. Being a firm
    believer in the idea that there is no substitute for personal
    observation, I recently made my first visit to Iraq and to the
    5th Fleet. I met with sailors and marines at a number of major
    naval bases in the United States, and overseas, and visited
    several leading shipyards on the east coast.
        During my visit to Iraq last month, where I traveled
    throughout Al Anbar process from Falluja to the Syrian border,
    I spoke to hundreds of marines and sailors on an individual
    basis and the experience has left me with more pride and
    admiration for their courage and commitment, than I have
    thought possible. I was truly struck by their genuine
    enthusiasm and professionalism, and humbled by their
    achievement.
        It is difficult to describe the feeling one gets, for
    example, after meeting a team of four marines in Al Taqaddum,
    southwest of Baghdad, standing in front of a mangled and broken
    Humvee--a vehicle destroyed by an improvised explosive device
    (IED) while they were patrolling in it just days before. But
    though the vehicle was damaged beyond repair, all four marines
    were healthy, resolute, and determined--ready to go back out on
    patrol.
        Mr. Chairman, the courage of those four marines is symbolic
    of the courage shown by countless others on duty in the global
    war on terror, and it is inspiring to all of us who serve our
    Nation.
        There are countless unsung heroes--yes, heroes--doing
    extremely important work under demanding conditions on land and
    at sea, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, all over the globe.
        To highlight one other example, Navy sailors are guarding
    strategically vital oil terminals off the coast of Iraq,
    thereby protecting not only Iraq's, but the world's economy
    from attacks by terrorists. They know the importance of their
    mission and they take great pride in doing it well.
        Now I would like to thank this subcommittee for its strong
    support for the Navy and marines. Your visits to forward
    deployed marines and sailors are essential, and they are deeply
    appreciated by those serving so far from home.
        The same applies to visits to wounded heroes at Bethesda
    Naval Hospital, Walter Reed Medical Center, and other medical
    facilities. I know from my own visits with injured sailors and
    marines that your personal concern and support means a great
    deal to these young patriots who have sacrificed so much in the
    service of this Nation.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Honorable Donald C. Winter
     Providing the Right Force for the Nation Today . . . While Preparing
                       for the Uncertainties of Tomorrow

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today. I recently had the opportunity
    to visit our forces in Iraq. This was my first visit to Iraq. I was
    truly impressed by the genuine enthusiasm and drive of our forces. Our
    Marines and Sailors believe in what they are doing and they are
    performing superbly in very challenging circumstances. From the Iraqi-
    Syrian border region to Iraq's off-shore oil terminals, our troops are
    making a difference in the transition of Iraq to a democratic nation.
    Our troops recognize they are making a difference and are proud of what
    they do. And, I am very proud of what they are doing to win the war. It
    is not an easy battle but one that, with the support of the American
    people and Congress, we can and will win. Your continued support of our
    Sailors and Marines has a profound, positive impact on our ability to
    provide matchless naval forces for the defense of the United States.
        Throughout the world, the Navy and Marine Corps Team continues to
    answer the Nation's call and play a leading role in the Global War on
    Terror (GWOT). During 2005, the versatility and flexibility of
    expeditionary naval forces were repeatedly demonstrated while
    undertaking missions that ranged from major combat operations in
    Afghanistan and Iraq, to Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief
    (HA/DR) operations in Indonesia and on our own Gulf Coast after
    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
        Providing the right force for the Nation today, in a time of war,
    is not the only challenge. We must also prepare for the uncertainties
    of tomorrow that include future terrorists and other emerging
    asymmetric threats, as well as potential peer competitors. All of these
    will require Navy and Marine Corps forces capable of preserving
    America's longstanding maritime dominance.
        Naval forces have inherent, unique warfighting capabilities that
    include global access, a non-intrusive footprint, persistent presence,
    and expeditionary power that always figure prominently in the
    President's deliberations during times of crisis. Far-sighted leaders
    in Congress, recognizing naval forces' unique strengths, deserve our
    thanks for the key resource decisions they have made in recent years.
        This past year featured a long and impressive list of Navy and
    Marine Corps achievements in support of GWOT. Last year in Iraq, Navy
    and Marine Corps personnel proved critical to the achievement of
    wartime objectives. A Marine Expeditionary Force conducted operations
    in Al Anbar province, the heart of the Baathist insurgency, and was
    successful in ensuring security for the historic elections in January
    and December 2005. Marines also executed missions in Afghanistan and
    the Horn of Africa. Sailors were deployed to U.S. Central Command
    (USCENTCOM) in various missions ashore, requiring boots on the ground.
    Missions were performed by SEALs, Seabees, Military Police (MP),
    Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), medical, intelligence, civil
    affairs, and other support personnel.
        The flexibility and professionalism of naval forces were also on
    display in providing humanitarian relief to tsunami victims in South
    Asia, earthquake victims in Pakistan, and to our own citizens along the
    Gulf Coast. After Hurricane Katrina hit, naval forces responded with 23
    ships, more than 12,000 Sailors and Marines, and 104 aircraft to
    evacuate more than 8,000 victims and deliver more than 2 million pounds
    of food and countless gallons of water. The zeal and professionalism
    with which Sailors and Marines rushed forward to save lives and provide
    comfort to the afflicted were brought under an international spotlight,
    proving once again that naval forces have the versatility to serve as
    first responders with global reach.
        In carrying out these missions, from Kabul to Baghdad, and
    Indonesia to New Orleans, the Navy and Marine Corps performed superbly,
    taking advantage of their unique capabilities to engage the enemy or
    rescue those in distress, achieving objectives ranging from eliminating
    a terrorist enclave to building enduring relationships and gaining
    influence through our goodwill gestures. Faced with the strategic
    imperatives of providing the right force for the nation today, while
    simultaneously building naval capabilities for the challenges of
    tomorrow, the Department must continue on its course towards
    transformation and modernization. Funding technologies and weapons
    systems that will enable naval forces to enlarge their contributions to
    GWOT is our most urgent task. Investing in the ships, aircraft,
    submarines, and Marine Corps warfighting equipment and people to
    preserve this Nation's historic naval power to dissuade or deter peer
    competitors, to prevail in war, and to win hearts and minds, remains an
    enduring, fundamental strategic requirement.
        Responsible and successful statesmanship requires matching
    strategic ends to available means. This requires trade-offs and hard
    choices in a security environment where errors or misjudgments can
    result in significant consequences. The Department of the Navy's
    portion of the President's Budget for fiscal year 2007 is the product
    of a realistic, rigorous assessment of naval requirements, resources,
    and priorities. It reflects both wartime exigencies and prudent
    investments, with a vigilant eye on the uncertainties of tomorrow.
        As Navy and Marine Corps forces are actively engaged in combat
    operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and stand ready around the globe, we
    have a solemn duty to ensure that our Sailors and Marines are trained,
    equipped, and prepared for all missions. The fiscal year 2007
    President's Budget meets these requirements.

                       FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET PRIORITIES

        In support of the Department of the Navy's mission and as validated
    by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the fiscal year 2007
    President's budget provides the right force for the Nation today,
    prepares for the uncertainties of tomorrow, and effectively manages the
    risk imposed by legitimate fiscal constraints.
        The fiscal year 2007 budget includes $127.3 billion for the
    Department of the Navy, an increase of $4.4 billion over last year's
    baseline appropriations.
        In fiscal year 2007, every appropriations category increases except
    for Research and Development (R&D). Military Personnel accounts
    increase due primarily to health care costs and retired pay. Operating
    accounts increase because of the rising cost of fuel, and to support
    higher readiness levels that overall generates a more cost-efficient
    use of valuable naval assets. Procurement accounts increase as we build
    the future fleet. The R&D accounts decrease as a result of programs
    transitioning from development to production. The following summarizes
    the fiscal year 2007 budget highlights for the Department of the Navy:
        Personnel Salary and Benefits.--The fiscal year 2007 President's
    budget includes an increase of $1.4 billion in military personnel
    spending which includes a basic pay raise of 2.2 percent for all
    service members, health benefits, a 5.9 percent increase in housing
    allowance, special pays, and targeted pay raises for warrant officers
    and mid-grade/senior enlisted personnel. As a result of targeted pay
    incentives, the Navy and Marine Corps achieved nearly every active duty
    recruiting and retention goal with exceptions found only in highly
    technical specialties. To maintain momentum, the Navy and Marine Corps
    have increased funding for enlistment bonuses. Congressional support is
    appreciated for the re-enlistment bonus increases slated for selected
    technical ratings.
        Operation and Maintenance.--The fiscal year 2007 President's budget
    increases Operation and Maintenance by $2.1 billion. As part of a joint
    warfighting team, the Navy and Marine Corps will control the seas,
    assure access, and project offensive power and defensive capability to
    influence events at sea and ashore. The ability of naval forces to meet
    the Combatant Commanders' requirements is a function of their combat
    readiness. The Navy's Fleet Response Plan (FRP) produces adaptable
    force packages and better sustains readiness throughout a unit's
    operational cycle to ensure the availability of fully ready Carrier
    Strike Groups (CSG) and other fleet assets. The goal of FRP is to
    provide the Nation with 6 CSGs within 30 days, and an additional CSG
    within 90 days. Fiscal year 2007 funding will invest in future
    readiness for an experienced and trained fleet and will also provide
    better trained, safer, and more lethal Marines before they deploy.
    Marine forces preparing for combat operations also require additional
    training resources. Fiscal year 2007 funds will also pay to implement
    the following new joint capabilities, which reflect an increased role
    for the Department of the Navy in prosecuting GWOT:
      --The Marine Corps Special Operations Command (MARSOC) will enhance
            interoperability, and provide greater flexibility and increased
            capability to conduct irregular warfare.
      --Regeneration of a Navy Riverine Capability will fill a critical
            capability gap by extending operations into the ``brown water''
            environment, and provide additional opportunities to build
            partner-nation cooperation.
      --The Expeditionary Security Force will increase the effectiveness of
            shipborne security and maritime interdiction operations by
            supporting intercept and boarding capabilities in every CSG/
            ESG, as well as providing high end defensive capabilities
            within the Navy in support of force protection, harbor/port
            defense, and protection of maritime infrastructure.
      --The National Maritime Intelligence Center, serving as the Nation's
            Global Maritime Intelligence Integration Center, will increase
            Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) by strengthening interagency
            operations and enhancing partner-nation cooperation.
        Shipbuilding Account.--The fiscal year 2007 budget for shipbuilding
    ensures that tomorrow's fleet will remain the world's preeminent. In
    fiscal year 2007, fourteen ships will be delivered to the Navy that
    include: four Amphibious Transport Dock ships (LPD)--(Hurricane Katrina
    impact may delay two ships to fiscal year 2008), three Dry Cargo and
    Ammunition ships (T-AKE), three Guided-Missile Destroyers (DDG), one
    Amphibious Assault ship (LHD), one Attack submarine (SSN), and one
    Oceanographic Survey ship (T-AGS). Also, the first of its class
    Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) will be delivered, built in less than two
    years. This is the payoff of previous years' investments toward buying
    naval capabilities for the future.
        Aviation Account.--The fiscal year 2007 budget increases aviation
    procurement by $1.2 billion to support the continued acquisition of
    critical programs including the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), F/A-18E/F,
    EA-18G, MV-22, AH-1Z/UH-1Y, MH-60R, MH-60S multimission helicopters,
    and the Joint Primary Aircrew Training System (JPATS). Funding for 165
    aircraft in fiscal year 2007 reflects an increase of 31 aircraft over
    fiscal year 2006, and a total of 1,150 new aircraft over the Future
    Years Defense Plan (FYDP).
        Marine Corps Ground Equipment Accounts.--High Mobility Multi-
    Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), Light Armored Vehicle Product
    Improvement Program (LAV PIP), Lightweight 155 mm Howitzer (LW-155),
    High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), and the Assault
    Breaching Vehicle (ABV) are vital programs funded in this budget. The
    Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) begins initial low rate production
    in fiscal year 2007.
        Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) Account.--In
    fiscal year 2007, research and development decreases by $1.8 billion,
    reflecting acquisition maturation and the transition to production.
    Additionally, there is a transfer of $280 million from Navy R&D to
    Defense Wide R&D for Joint Forces Command efforts. Critical
    Shipbuilding programs include CVN 21, DD(X), LCS, Joint Highspeed
    Vessel and the SSN 774 Virginia-Class submarine. Critical manned
    aviation programs include the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), P-8A Multi-
    Mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA), VH-71 Presidential helicopter
    replacement, E2D, EA-18G, and CH-53K.
              Providing the Right Force for the Nation Today . . .

                                NAVAL WORKFORCE

        Those of you who have visited forward deployed Navy and Marine
    forces, as I have recently done, know that naval forces include the
    best of America's young men and women. I am energized every time I have
    an opportunity to meet and talk with our Sailors and Marines. It is
    pure joy each time I reenlist or promote these true patriots. I deeply
    admire their willingness to continue their service and swear an oath of
    allegiance knowing the dangers and hardships they face. My visits
    reinforced the highest regard I already hold for the tremendously
    dedicated men and women who serve our Nation, in uniform and out, and
    for their leadership.
        Commitment to the welfare and professional development of these
    Sailors and Marines is a top priority. I give the same emphasis to
    safety. The Department is making investments in protecting Sailors and
    Marines through accident prevention initiatives and with armor and
    specialized equipment. Our Sailors and Marines, civilians, and
    contractors deserve our very best efforts to maintain their continued
    safety and welfare.
        The rising cost of naval manpower continues to drive the overall
    budget significantly. While the Department continues to increase
    performance efficiency through targeted manpower reductions, total
    manpower costs continue to rise. We must invest in this force so that
    it remains technically competent, properly equipped, and well trained.
        Protect Sailors and Marines.--Protecting Sailors and Marines is a
    top priority. In response to growing force protection concerns in Iraq
    and Afghanistan, the Department has expeditiously acquired technology
    and hardware to equip Marines and Sailors for current wartime
    operations.
      --Personal Protective Equipment.--Every Marine, Sailor, and
            Department of the Navy civilian is issued a complete set of
            body armor before going into Iraq or Afghanistan. They are
            outfitted with the Interceptor Body Armor System, including
            Outer Tactical Vests, Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI),
            ballistic helmets and ballistic goggles. Enhanced SAPI plates
            have been providing a significant force protection improvement,
            with 13,798 sets fielded. In June 2005 the Marine Corps
            identified the need for armor side plates. Delivery to the
            field began in November 2005, and to date 11,614 sets of body
            armor side plates have been shipped to theater, and an
            additional 9,000 sets will be fielded during the third quarter
            of fiscal year 2006. Other initiatives, such as an improved
            lightweight combat helmet, and lower face and body armor, are
            under development.
      --Vehicle Hardening.--Since August 2004, all Marine Corps vehicles
            operating outside Forward Operating bases have been equipped
            with Level II armor or better. The Marine Corps worked hard to
            replace the first generation armor with this improved zonal
            protection.
      --A fiscal year 2006 bridge supplemental of $179 million is procuring
            the final 524 M1114s (Up-Armored Armament Carrier configuration
            of the HMMWV family) to fill the requirement for 2814 M1114s,
            by September 2006. The Marine Corps Systems Command and the
            Marine Corps Warfighting Lab teamed with the Army Developmental
            Test Command to test and rapidly assess various materials for
            use in vehicle hardening, to include improved ballistic glass,
            armor, and ceramics. These added armor capabilities have been
            incorporated into the next generation of vehicle hardening
            initiatives: the Marine Armor Kit (MAK) for the HMMWV, and the
            Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) Armor System (MAS).
            MAK and MAS armor are replacing previous generations with an
            integrated, comprehensive (improved perimeter, top, and under-
            body) armor kit. A total of 2,660 HMMWV MAK installations were
            completed by November 2005. MTVR MAS kit installation is over
            60 percent complete with an estimated completion date of May
            2006 for the remaining vehicles.
      --Counter IED Technology and Equipment.--The Department has
            aggressively developed technologies to counter the threat posed
            by Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan.
            I recently had the opportunity to visit our forces in Iraq.
            From first-hand observation, I can assure you that we are
            working the IED problem comprehensively and with a great sense
            of urgency. IEDs are a continuously evolving problem and we are
            constantly evolving our response. We are effectively addressing
            challenges associated with IEDs.
        The Department of Defense (DOD) designated the Navy as the single
    manager for Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) technology and training
    responsible for the development of Joint Service EOD technology. The
    Department has fully supported the Joint IED Defeat Organization with
    leadership as well as delivery to Iraq of a number of high and low
    powered jammers. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) is focusing on
    long-term (5-10 years) research for solutions to countering the IED
    threat. Over 450 responses to their Broad Agency Announcement have been
    received and are currently being evaluated.
        Recruit/Retain the Right Force.--With advances in the technology of
    weapons systems and platforms requiring personnel with highly
    specialized knowledge of computers and engineering, Navy and Marine
    Corps recruiters must target the top of the talent pool. Those who join
    and are subsequently trained to further develop their skills become
    increasingly valuable and are difficult to replace. Monetary incentives
    to recruit and retain are important, but not sufficient. Effective
    leadership and the sense that one is engaged in a noble, rewarding
    profession are even more important in motivating talented people to
    serve the Nation.
      --Pay Compensation Initiatives.--Officer retention rates remain well
            above the historical lows of the late 1990s. The improvement is
            directly attributable to targeted incentive/critical skill pays
            established to address shortfalls. Despite the current positive
            retention trend, shortfalls remain in the Lieutenant Commander
            through Captain ranks in the Surface and Submarine communities.
            The use of continuation pay to target shortfalls will be
            continued.
      --Family Support.--Military service places unique demands on families
            and communities. The fiscal year 2007 President's budget for
            family and community services supports my personal emphasis on
            our people. It improves recruiting and retention, and supports
            our personnel in times of crisis. Family support programs and
            services assist in achieving operational readiness and improve
            retention by caring for our families. The Marine for Life--
            Injured Support Program provides continuing care for the
            critically injured Marines and Sailors serving with Marines. A
            robust family support system is an essential element to
            maximizing every Sailor's and Marine's quality of service, and
            is my personal priority.
      --Housing Initiatives.--Improving housing is a top priority as we
            recruit, retain, and improve the naval workforce. The complete
            elimination of inadequate military housing is our goal. The
            Department's housing strategy focuses on several areas
            including zero average out-of-pocket expenses for Sailors and
            Marines by raising Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) in high-
            cost areas, completing construction of new housing units, and
            completing our successful program of privatizing military
            family housing. Additional initiatives include maintaining the
            ``Homeport Ashore'' program that constructs new housing for
            single, junior (E1-E3) personnel currently living onboard their
            ships, even while in homeport. Marine Corps improved housing
            for single Marines will be completed by fiscal year 2011.
      --Healthcare.--Providing superb health care to Sailors, Marines, and
            their families is a critical part of the Department's support
            for personnel. The fiscal year 2007 budget includes an increase
            in funding to support healthcare accrual costs. Navy medicine
            is focused on supporting the deployment readiness of the
            uniformed services by delivering the right medical care for the
            fleet and Fleet Marine Force while providing for the health
            care needs of families and retirees. This health care includes
            improved post deployment care for returning Marines, Sailors
            and their families.
        Shape the Force to Match the Need.--As the world gets more complex,
    the future force must continue with technology intensive training, but
    must also develop new skill sets as we move from the blue to the green
    and brown water environments. Advances in ship and systems designs will
    allow us to use technology to improve warfighting readiness, while
    skills like cultural awareness and foreign languages will enhance our
    effectiveness as we operate across the littorals and ashore. Future
    emphasis will focus on matching the right skills and experience to the
    right place at the right time, and providing the personal and
    professional tools needed to succeed.
        Moving forward to execute a comprehensive strategy to enhance
    combat effectiveness in the 21st Century, the Department is designing a
    force that is aligned, shaped and developed to current and future
    mission requirements. In order to reduce and reshape the force,
    incentives and tools are needed to identify personnel in obsolete or
    overmanned skill sets. The Perform-to-Serve and Early Release programs
    are two examples that have helped create a more experienced, better
    trained, and smaller force.

                                   OPERATIONS

        Today, Sailors and Marines are postured worldwide, fighting the war
    on terror, deterring aggression by would-be foes, preserving freedom of
    the seas, and promoting peace and security. On February 15, 2006, 141
    ships (50 percent of the Battleforce) were underway of which 97 ships
    (35 percent) are forward deployed. Navy active strength totals 357,474
    of which 5,298 are mobilized Reserves. Marines are forward deployed
    worldwide, including the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. Marine
    Corps strength totals 179,139 with 7,040 mobilized Reserves.
        Project Naval Power in the Global War on Terror.--Winning the GWOT
    is our number one strategic priority. Sailors and Marines are actively
    engaged in operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in
    counter-terrorist operations in the Horn of Africa, the Philippines,
    the Persian Gulf, and elsewhere around the globe.
        Currently over 26,000 Marines are serving in the CENTCOM Area of
    Responsibility (AOR), together with both sea- and shore-based Navy
    personnel in support of Operations IRAQI FREEDOM and ENDURING FREEDOM.
    Marines continue to conduct operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq
    with counter-insurgency operations in the Euphrates River valley and
    other locations in Iraq. Training of Iraq forces is of particular
    importance. In Afghanistan, Marines provide a reinforced infantry
    battalion to the multi-national forces, and three Embedded Training
    Teams within the Afghan National Army. These teams train, mentor, and
    operate with their Afghan counterparts. Building up the capacity of our
    partners is critical to the strategy of countering extremist influence
    in the war on terror.
        All together there are over 10,000 Sailors serving ashore
    throughout the CENTCOM AOR including more than 4,000 in Iraq, and an
    additional 2,600 in Kuwait that include SEALs, Seabees, MPs, EOD,
    medical, intelligence, legal, civil affairs, and other support
    personnel. Navy CSGs and ESGs continue to deploy in support of GWOT,
    conduct combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, execute counter-
    piracy missions, and provide humanitarian assistance and disaster
    relief such as the tsunami relief, Pakistani earthquake, and on our own
    Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Additionally, there are
    approximately 400 Sailors in Afghanistan and 700 Sailors at the
    Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, where the Navy is scheduled to assume
    responsibility for the Joint Task Force in the Spring of 2006.
        Improve Surge Capability.--The GWOT requires a naval force capable
    of surging to protect our interests throughout the world. The FRP is
    the operational framework that capitalizes on investments that have
    been made for higher readiness throughout a unit's operational cycle.
    By leveraging increased readiness under the framework of the FRP, the
    Navy has responded to support Combatant Commanders around the globe.
    The Navy today is meeting all commitments with trained and ready
    forces, and taking on new roles to address security challenges. The
    Marine Corps accounts for 4 percent of the DOD budget while providing
    23 percent of the nation's active-duty ground forces. Currently, over
    39,000 Marines are forward deployed conducting combat, peacekeeping,
    humanitarian assistance, and training missions worldwide. This
    investment in expeditionary combat power is more than just a good
    value; it is a product of focused, responsible stewardship.
        Enhance Homeland Security.--The Navy has established a strong
    cooperative working relationship with the U.S. Coast Guard in support
    of maritime defense operations. The existing DOD/DHS Memorandum of
    Agreement (MOA) enables rapid provision of Coast Guard forces to the
    Navy in the event of a national crisis. The Services are currently
    working the modalities of inter-service cooperation cited in the
    Maritime Operational Threat Response plan of the President's National
    Strategy for Maritime Security. Additionally, the Department will
    remain prepared for CONUS consequence management with capabilities that
    include maritime and aviation assets for logistics, Search and Rescue
    (SAR), EOD, headquarters and communication platforms, medical, salvage,
    and Seabee construction support.
        Increase Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA).--Protection of the U.S.
    homeland and critical interests around the world requires a strong
    commitment to enhancing MDA, a key component of an active layered
    maritime defense in depth. The U.S. Navy is a vital part of this
    initiative. The Presidential Directive for Maritime Security Policy
    calls for a national plan to achieve MDA. The Navy actively
    participates in the National MDA Implementation Team with U.S. Northern
    Command (NORTHCOM) and 19 other agencies to develop an investment
    strategy. The team is improving MDA through interagency cooperation,
    developing and strengthening relations with international partners, and
    accelerating investment in multinational coordination, such as the
    Automatic Identification System (AIS), and the Multinational
    Information Sharing System (MNIS). Proliferation Security Initiative
    (PSI) and the Container Security Initiative (CSI) are important tools
    in this effort. Additionally, the Navy and Coast Guard are exploring
    other focused technology areas including data fusion and anomaly
    detection capabilities to enable analysts and watchstanders to
    transform large quantities of data into actionable intelligence.
        Provide Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief.--The Navy and
    Marine Corps Team can rapidly respond to crises around the globe to
    provide combat power projection or humanitarian assistance and disaster
    relief. After the tsunami struck South Asia late last year, forward-
    deployed naval forces were the first on-scene providing life-saving
    assistance. Within a few days of the disaster, USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN
    72), USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) and supporting ships arrived off the
    coast of Indonesia, and commenced ferrying supplies ashore and
    evacuating critical patients to sea-based medical facilities.
        During the relief operation, over 25 ships with embarked aircraft
    and landing craft, and the hospital ship USNS MERCY (T-AH 19),
    delivered more than 24 million pounds of relief supplies and treated
    over 6,500 patients. Recovery and relief in Pakistan following the
    devastating earthquake were led by on-station Navy and Marine Corps
    units. These kinds of missions show our nation's compassion and are
    just as important as showing our military strength.
        When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita left a swath of destruction across
    our southern Gulf Coast, the Navy and Marine Corps Team responded.
    Ships of all types sortied from their homeports to the Gulf of Mexico.
    Navy and Marine Corps helicopters from air stations around the country
    quickly flew into New Orleans in the critical first few days following
    the storm to rescue thousands of stranded citizens. USS BATAAN (LHD 5),
    conducting training exercises in the area, was first to respond. USS
    IWO JIMA (LHD 7), our newest amphibious assault ship, transited from
    Norfolk and docked pierside in New Orleans to serve as a joint,
    interagency command and control center, a landing strip for a multitude
    of helicopters, and a base for rescue workers. USS HARRY S TRUMAN (CVN
    75) sortied from Norfolk to act as an additional aviation platform for
    ferrying relief supplies. Navy and Marine Corps Reserve personnel used
    their amphibious training and equipment for rescue operations, and in
    many cases, were the first help to arrive on-scene. The hospital ship
    USNS COMFORT (T-AH 20) surged from reduced operating status in
    Baltimore to be on-scene in a few days. Bases at Gulfport and Meridian
    provided over 7,000 meals a day to evacuees, military personnel and
    relief workers. Marines flew 815 sorties and transported 1.1 million
    pounds of cargo and 5,248 passengers. A total of 446 rescue missions
    were flown, resulting in the recovery of 1,467 personnel. The Seabees
    built self-contained tent cities that housed 6,500 people each and
    included hot showers, hot meals and laundry facilities. Fleet and
    Family Support centers from unaffected Naval Stations moved into the
    area to set-up ``safe haven'' programs to help military families deal
    with the enormous stress that Katrina brought in her wake. All the
    efforts of the Sailors and Marines focused on helping others in time of
    need, regardless of geography or circumstance. Carrying on the proud
    tradition of naval service, they earned a particular sense of
    accomplishment in these noble missions.
        Expand Presence and Capabilities into Littoral and Riverine
    Environments.--The Navy and Marine Corps are expanding the Nation's
    ability to extend combat power from the sea to the littoral regions of
    the world. These regions encompass large portions of the world's
    populace and hold many vital centers for transportation, commerce, and
    government. One key initiative, the Naval Expeditionary Combat Command
    (NECC), will combine a riverine and small boat capability with
    expeditionary training, security, and logistics, maritime civil
    affairs, Seabees, EOD, and Mobile Diving and Salvage. This realignment
    of existing force structure with new warfare initiatives will enhance
    maritime boarding operations, port security, foreign military training,
    and crisis/disaster response to create influence and capacity for near-
    shore and inland waterway operations.

                                   EQUIPMENT

        The Department of the Navy is committed to enhancing procurement
    programs to improve capabilities, efficiency, and productivity. The
    Department's strategy is to establish consensus for procurement among
    the Administration, Congress, and contractors to forge a new commitment
    to building a force for the future, while establishing a stable
    industrial base.
        Simultaneously Reset, Recapitalize, and Modernize Equipment.--
    Combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increased operational
    tempo in support of GWOT are stressing equipment and diminishing pre-
    positioned stocks of hardware, munitions, and supplies.
        Harsh environments, unavoidable maintenance delays, and battle
    damage are all taking their toll on equipment. The cost associated with
    resetting the force is above the baseline budget and will be covered
    with appropriate Supplementals.
        Combat operations have subjected much USMC equipment to a lifetime
    worth of use in just a few years. Many systems are already at or beyond
    program service life. Examples include the M198 howitzer, HMMWV, EA-6B,
    CH-53D, CH-46E and UH-1N. Service life extension programs and
    innovative forward deployed maintenance programs are helping keep
    current equipment combat-ready.
        Enhance Procurement Programs: Improvements and Affordability.--The
    Sea Enterprise initiative is transforming naval business processes and
    driving efficiencies and effectiveness, essentially balancing the
    ``Right Force, Right Readiness, and Right Cost.'' Sea Enterprise is
    changing the Department's business culture, improving productivity,
    streamlining processes, and harvesting savings to support higher
    priorities.
        The Department is developing leaders with a better understanding of
    business strategies, cost control, program risk and rapid flexible
    design. As stewards of the Department's acquisition and total ownership
    processes, the Systems Commands, Direct-Reporting Program Managers
    (DRPMs), and Program Executive Officers (PEOs) are responsible for
    furnishing high-quality yet affordable technologies, systems,
    platforms, training, and support to the operating forces.
        To help guard against the danger of procurement fraud, the
    Department established the Naval Acquisition Integrity Office in the
    Office of the General Counsel. This office coordinates all parts of the
    procurement fraud program and provides training and guidance on
    procurement fraud matters.
            . . . While Preparing for the Uncertainties of Tomorrow

                        SHAPE OUR 21ST CENTURY WORKFORCE

        Future combat effectiveness and employment are dependent upon
    obtaining a force with the right skills in the right place at the right
    time. The active and reserve military components, civil servants, and
    the Department's contractors must continue to adapt to different
    operating environments, develop new skills, and rebalance capabilities
    and people to remain prepared for the new challenges of an uncertain
    future. The Department of the Navy is working to increase efficiency by
    implementing force shaping tools to target manpower reductions, and by
    defining the skill-mix of the force to capitalize on new technologies
    and conduct new missions.
        Ensure the Correct Endstrength.--To facilitate transformation, the
    Navy strength will decrease by 12,000 in fiscal year 2007 to 340,700.
    The budgeted Navy endstrength reflects a commitment to proper sizing
    and includes the following initiatives:
      --``Sea Swap'' rotational crews for smaller ships.
      --Decommissioning of older, manpower intensive platforms.
      --Improved use of technology to reduce shipboard manning and shorten
            training pipelines.
      --Conversion of military to civilian, as appropriate. This includes
            the continued conversion of billets on selected Military
            Sealift Command ships and in medical facilities in rear areas
            or ashore.
        The Marine Corps is realigning within its endstrength to ensure
    continued readiness to sustain combat capabilities. The Marine Corps is
    utilizing selected Marine Corps Reserve units and individual augmentees
    as necessary to maintain essential wartime capability. Baseline funded
    Marine Corps manning levels for Active and Reserve forces remain the
    same in fiscal year 2007 at 175,000 and 39,600 respectively.
        Develop a Force with the Skills Required for the Future.--Future
    force attributes such as foreign language skills, cultural awareness,
    mastering technology and cyberspace, together with traditional
    warfighting skills will be critical to the Navy and Marine Corps. The
    Navy is expanding the Foreign Area Officer (FAO) program that will form
    a professional cadre of officers with regional expertise and language
    skills to provide support to Fleet Commanders, Combatant Commanders,
    and Joint staffs. The immediate mission for the community is to rapidly
    improve the Navy's ability to conduct theater security cooperation,
    improve partner capacity in GWOT, and generate actionable intelligence.
    These personnel will work in complex environments in remote locations
    and will forge personal relationships that could be useful during times
    of crisis.
        The Marine Corps Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning
    (CAOC-L) is the Corps' ``one-stop'' clearing house for operational
    culture and language training. Through focused training for the
    operating forces, individual training and Professional Military
    Education, distance learning, and professional reading, it promotes a
    grasp of culture and language as regular, mainstream components of the
    operating environment--the human terrain--throughout the full spectrum
    of military operations.
        The Marine Corps is establishing a Marine Corps Special Operations
    Command (MARSOC) as a component of the U.S. Special Operations Command
    (USSOCOM). MARSOC will enhance Marine Corps and USSOCOM
    interoperability and provide greater flexibility with increased
    capability to fight non-traditional threats. The mission of MARSOC
    headquarters will be to organize, man, train, and equip Marine Special
    Operations Forces. The command's subordinate units will provide
    training to foreign military units and perform specific special
    operations missions such as: direct action, special reconnaissance,
    counterterrorism, and foreign internal defense. MARSOC will be
    organized into three subordinate elements with an authorized strength
    of 2,600 Marines and Sailors. The current plan calls for IOC during the
    fall of 2006 and a full operational capability by 2010.
        Active/Reserve Integration.--Active Reserve Integration (ARI)
    aligns Reserve Component (RC) and Active Component (AC) personnel,
    training, equipment, and policy to provide a more effective and
    efficient Total Force capable of meeting dynamic National Defense
    requirements.
        The Navy is currently aligning RC and AC units to better meet
    Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom requirements and
    the Navy's vision for our future force structure. RC Helo-Combat
    Support (HCS) forces will be integrated into AC Helo, RC and AC
    Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) units are being integrated and two RC
    Navy Coastal Warfare Units (NCW) are being converted to AC. The Navy
    established integrated Operation Vigilant Mariner units providing
    vessel security, as well as Expeditionary Training Teams improving
    multinational capabilities.
        The Navy is studying the role of the RC in future Navy mission
    areas of Riverine Warfare and Civil Affairs. Ongoing initiatives to
    meet Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM Provisional
    Unit requirements, AC and RC Sailors are working together to fill
    billets in Civil Affairs, Detainee Operations, Intelligence, and
    Reconstruction Team efforts.
        Implement the National Security Personnel System (NSPS).--NSPS is a
    new civilian personnel system, designed to meet the DOD national
    security challenges of the 21st Century. NSPS will strengthen the
    ability to accomplish the Department's mission in an ever-changing
    national security environment. NSPS accelerates efforts to create a
    total force (active military, Reserve, Guard, civilian, and
    contractors), operating as one cohesive unit, with each performing the
    work most suitable to their skills. NSPS will provide a human resources
    system that appropriately recognizes and rewards employees' performance
    and the contributions they make to the Department's mission.

                           CHANGING THE WAY WE FIGHT

        The Department of the Navy continues to transition to a force more
    capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, preserving the high
    seas, and securing the maritime domain, while ensuring access and
    sustainability of the Joint Warfighting Team in the blue, green, and
    brown water arenas. The Navy and Marine Corps team will continue to
    transform in response to a new force planning construct as articulated
    in the 2006 QDR. Naval forces will use the sovereignty of the sea and
    enhanced networked joint Sea Basing to operate without restrictions.
    The Department's Sailors, Marines, and Civilians will leverage
    innovative concepts, advanced technologies, and new business practices
    to increase warfighting effectiveness.
        Meeting Future Challenges.--Naval forces will engage potential
    adversaries as far from the United States and our interests as
    possible, and during times of crisis will form the leading edge of
    America's response. The ability of our forces to embrace and prevail in
    a future characterized by unrestricted warfare and uncertainty will be
    essential to mission success. The enduring role as our Nation's sea-
    based force will require that the Navy and Marine Corps Team provide
    access, fight and win, and continually transform.
        Strengthening Joint Concepts and Operations.--The Navy and Marine
    Corps Team is committed to strengthening and refining concepts and
    operations as part of the Joint fight. From combat operations in Iraq,
    to stability operations in the Horn of Africa, to counter-drug
    operations in the Caribbean, naval forces are increasingly working in
    concert with other uniformed services and government agencies. Joint
    acquisition of weapon systems and C4ISR capabilities will increase
    interoperability and effectiveness while reducing costs. The vision for
    joint maritime forces, to include the Coast Guard, is a networked fleet
    that is more capable of projecting naval power in the brown and green
    waters of coastal areas.
        Enhancing Navy's Role in Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD).--National
    Security Presidential Directive 23 identifies the Navy's role in BMD.
    That role is to support and ultimately field the maritime elements of
    the BMD system to support detection, tracking, and engagement of
    ballistic missile threats in all phases of flight. The Aegis BMD system
    contributes to the overall plan by providing the capability for Navy
    surface combatants, on-station near any area of concern, to detect
    missile launches, as well as cue and provide fire-control quality
    tracking information to ground-based interceptors. Additional
    capabilities to provide area defense by intercepting short- and medium-
    range ballistic missiles are being delivered to the fleet. USS LAKE
    ERIE (CG 70), the dedicated BMD test ship, has executed six successful
    flight tests of the SM-3 missile in seven attempts since 2002. The next
    test flight is scheduled for June 2006. The Aegis BMD capability has
    been installed on 12 ships: 2 cruisers (engagement capable), and 10
    destroyers (long-range surveillance and tracking capable). By
    demonstrating the ability to track long-range ballistic missiles, and
    developing plans to demonstrate a sea-based engagement capability, the
    Aegis fleet has paved the way for the Navy to play a significant role
    in the nation's missile defense.
        Define Future Force Structure/Capability.--The fiscal year 2007
    President's budget supports a larger, more capable naval force
    structure to meet joint warfighting requirements, presence missions,
    and GWOT demands. The budget provides for an increase in overall force
    structure, as well as a significant increase in capability. The annual
    investments in this budget support the growth of naval forces across
    the FYDP and lay the foundation for the force structure outlined in the
    Annual Long Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal
    Year 2007. The plan is to build to a target force structure based on
    our best estimate of the requirements. The number of ships and types of
    ships in this target force structure will evolve over time. The
    Department intends to maintain near term stability to allow proper
    workforce, process, and capital end product planning. Based on Navy
    analysis, the capability required to support the QDR Force Planning
    Construct is about 313 ships of a mix as defined in the long range
    shipbuilding plan, providing capabilities that will make the fleet even
    more agile, fast, persistent, and lethal.
        Surface Platforms.--The fiscal year 2007 shipbuilding plan supports
    the Navy's vision of a new generation of ships with higher speed, more
    persistence and precision, and reduced manpower and life cycle costs.
    The Navy's challenge is to build a fleet of the future that possesses
    the capability and capacity to meet joint demands for naval forces
    across the spectrum of operations from major combat operations to
    humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. The Department, through
    the Defense Planning Guidance, and QDR, has defined the required
    capabilities for the joint force through 2020. The fiscal year 2007
    President's budget provides for seven new ships. The total number of
    new ships across the FYDP is 51, an increase of 3 ships from last
    year's budget projection.
      --CVN 21.--Aircraft Carriers remain the premier asset for rapid
            crisis response and early decisive striking power in major
            combat operations. CVN 21 balances improved warfighting
            capability and quality of life improvements for the crew, with
            reduced acquisition and life cycle costs. Efficient nuclear
            propulsion, electromagnetic aircraft launch system, advanced
            arresting gear, and a three fold increase in electrical
            generating capacity will enable CSGs to provide forward
            presence, rapid response, endurance on station, and multi-
            mission capability. Construction of the lead ship (CVN 78) will
            cost $10.5 billion, of which $2.4 billion is non-recurring.
            Advanced procurement funding of $784 million is requested in
            fiscal year 2007 for CVN 78 and CVN 79. New technology
            development is on track and component testing is in progress.
            Steel was cut on the first advanced construction hull unit on
            April 2005, with the lead ship due to be delivered in fiscal
            year 2015 to replace USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65).
      --DD(X).--The DD(X) is the Navy's next generation destroyer. It is
            designed as a multi-mission surface combatant tailored for land
            attack and littoral dominance by providing persistent volume
            fires with high survivability. Under the ``Dual Lead Ship''
            strategy, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems and General Dynamics-
            Bath Iron Works will each build a lead ship to the common
            design. The funding for these ships will be split between the
            fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 budgets.
      --Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).--The LCS will be a fast, agile and
            networked surface combatant with capabilities optimized to
            assure naval and joint force access into contested littoral
            regions. Two ships are currently under construction with
            delivery of the first LCS, designated USS FREEDOM, scheduled
            for fiscal year 2007. A total of 23 LCS ships will be procured
            between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2011. LCS is designed
            with a speed goal of over 40 knots at full displacement in sea
            state 3 to help defeat anti-surface threats. It will possess
            inherent capabilities to conduct missions supporting special
            operations, maritime interception and homeland defense. The LCS
            sea frame is designed to be outfitted with reconfigurable
            payloads that can be changed out quickly. This modular design
            feature will provide the flexibility required to adapt to the
            uncertainty of the future.
      --San Antonio Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship (LPD 17).--USS SAN
            ANTONIO (LPD 17) was commissioned on January 14, 2006. LPDs 18
            and 19 have been launched, and LPDs 20 and 21 keels have been
            laid and are in full production. Contract awards for LPDs 22-24
            are expected in the 2nd quarter of fiscal year 2006. LPD 17 is
            an amphibious transport dock ship that functionally replaces
            the LPD 4, LSD 36, LKA 113, and LST 1179 Classes of amphibious
            ships for embarking, transporting and landing elements of a
            Marine force by helicopters, landing craft, amphibious
            vehicles, and by a combination of these methods. Its unique
            design will facilitate expanded force coverage and decreased
            reaction times of forward deployed Marine Expeditionary Units.
            In forcible entry operations, LPD 17 will help maintain a
            robust surface assault and rapid off-load capability for the
            Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) far into the future.
      --Maritime Preposition Force (Future) (MPF(F)).--MPF(F) will
            transform the Maritime Prepositioned Ships-supported MEB from
            an ashore fighting unit to one that can operate continuously
            from a sea base without the need for support from land. The
            MPF(F) family of ships will advance the capability of seabasing
            to support a wide spectrum of Joint force operations.
      --The fiscal year 2007 budget provides for procurement of one Dry
            Cargo and Ammunition Ship (T-AKE) in the National Defense
            Sealift Fund (NDSF). This will be the tenth ship of the class.
            The NDSF budget also includes funding for the development of
            future seabasing ships. The MPF(F) squadron of ships, a central
            part of the Sea Base operational concept, leverages current
            designs and production lines where possible. MPF(F) new
            construction commences in fiscal year 2009 and includes one T-
            AKE variant and one Mobile Landing Platform (MLP).
      --Amphibious Assault Ship (Replacement) (LHA(R)).--The President's
            budget for fiscal year 2007 includes $1.1 billion for the
            LHA(R) program. LHA(R) will replace four aging LHA Class ships
            that will reach the end of their extended service life in 2011.
            The LHA(R) will be a modified LHD 1 Class, Amphibious Assault
            Ship variant designed to leverage capabilities inherent in the
            JSF and MV-22. A four-ship LHA(R) shipbuilding program is
            needed to maintain future power projection and forward deployed
            combat capabilities of the Navy and Marine Corps. As noted in
            the October 23, 2004 LHA(R) Report to Congress, the requirement
            for four ships is based on the current force structure (four
            LHAs being replaced by four LHA(R)s, with two of the four going
            to the MPF(F) squadron). LHA(R)s will include a significant
            increase in aviation lift, sustainment, and maintenance
            capabilities, spaces for a Marine Expeditionary Brigade,
            Amphibious Group, or small-scale Joint Task Force (JTF) staff,
            a dramatic increase in service life allowances for new-
            generation Marine Corps systems, and substantial survivability
            upgrades.
    Submarines
        SSN: Virginia-Class Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarine.--Exceeding
    expectations and meeting all mission requirements, SSN 774 completed
    its first deployment in 2005, 14 months before its planned November
    2006 Initial Operating Capability (IOC). Fiscal year 2007 funds the
    fourth of five submarines under a multi-year procurement contract
    awarded in January 2004. A total of 10 ships have been ordered. Our
    intent is to increase the production rate to two attack submarines per
    year starting in fiscal year 2012.
        SSGN: Nuclear-Powered Guided-Missile Submarine.--The first of four
    OHIO class Trident fleet ballistic missile submarine, USS OHIO (SSGN
    726), completed the conversion process to launch Tomahawk missiles,
    completed sea trials, and returned to fleet service on February 7,
    2006. The other three are scheduled to return to fleet service by
    September 2007. These submarines can carry up to154 Tomahawk land-
    attack missiles and have the ability to conduct large-volume strikes
    with the surprise inherent in submarine operations. The SSGN has the
    capability to support a SOF contingent for an extended period of time,
    providing clandestine insertion and retrieval via built-in lockout
    chambers and dry deck shelters.
    Aviation Platforms
        The fiscal year 2007 budget sustains aviation superiority for the
    Navy and Marine Corps and emphasizes capability-based investment
    strategies, new warfighting concepts, and enabling technologies. The
    Navy and Marine Corps tactical air integration plan continues to reduce
    the total number of new aircraft needed to maintain naval air
    superiority. The fiscal year 2007 budget provides robust development
    funding for the F-35 JSF, MV-22, EA-18G, P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime
    aircraft (MMA), E-2D, CH-53K, VH-71 Presidential Support Helicopter,
    and JUCAV unmanned aircraft. The budget continues to maximize the
    return on investment, primarily through the use of multi-year
    procurement contracts for the F/A-18E/F, EA-18G, E-2C, MH-60S/MH-60R,
    and KC-130J. Additionally, the fiscal year 2007 budget demonstrates the
    Department's continuing commitment to developing, acquiring, and
    fielding transformational Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) technologies
    for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and tactical missions.
    The budget includes funding for the Fire Scout for deployment on LCS
    ships, and the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV.
        F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).--The fiscal year 2007 President's
    budget requests $2.28 billion for the JSF. The first flight of the
    Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) variant is scheduled for August
    2006; the first operationally ready carrier-based JSF squadron enters
    the fleet in 2013. The JSF will provide the Navy and Marine Corps with
    long-range, stealthy striking power from CVNs, large deck Amphibious
    Assault Ships (LHA/LHD, LHA(R)), and airfields. JSF variants will
    provide Naval Aviation with a 21st Century multi-mission tactical
    strike fighter, replacing the AV-8B, F-14, and the older F-18A/B/C/D
    airframes. Jointly developed with the Air Force and 8 other countries,
    the JSF is in its 5th year of development. The Marine Corps is pursuing
    the STOVL (Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing) version, while the Navy
    will purchase a follow-on CV (Aircraft Carrier) variant. High
    commonality between the variants will reduce both acquisition and
    operating costs. It has been concluded that a single engine supplier
    provides the best balance of risk and cost. The maturity of technology
    as demonstrated with the engine development of the F/A-18E/F and F-22
    indicate that sole source risks are modest and acceptable. Canceling
    development of the alternate source engine program will save $1.8
    billion through fiscal year 2011.
        MV-22 Osprey.--The fiscal year 2007 President's budget contains
    $1.5 billion for 14 aircraft. The MV-22 completed OPEVAL in 2005 and
    will reach its Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in 2007. Block A and
    Block B aircraft have been procured to support developmental testing,
    OPEVAL, training and initial fleet fielding. In full rate production,
    the aircraft procurement rate will ramp up to 37 aircraft per year. The
    program of record includes 360 MV-22s for the Marine Corps and 48 for
    the Navy. The demands of GWOT and modernization of our Expeditionary
    Warfare capabilities have increased the urgency to rapidly field the
    MV-22 Osprey. Its design incorporates advanced technologies in
    composite materials, survivability, airfoil design, fly-by-wire
    controls, digital avionics and manufacturing. The MV-22 is capable of
    carrying 24 combat-equipped Marines or a 10,000-pound external load,
    and has a strategic self-deployment capability of 2,100 nautical miles
    with a single aerial refueling. It is vastly superior to the CH-46E it
    replaces, with twice the speed, three times the payload, and six times
    the range. The V-22 Osprey, as a joint platform for the Navy, Marine
    Corps, and Air Force is providing significant opportunities for joint
    training, tactics development, and mission execution.
        E/A-18G Growler.--The fiscal year 2007 budget includes $0.9 billion
    for 12 EA-18Gs. The critical design review for the EA-18G was
    successfully completed in April 2005. The aircraft has completed its
    second year of system development and demonstration, is on cost, on
    schedule, and meeting performance standards. The EA-18G Growler will
    replace the EA-6B Prowler, providing full-spectrum electronic attack to
    counter enemy air defenses and communication networks. Many of the
    systems provided with the EA-18G will fulfill the Navy role in the
    Joint force in providing advanced technology to strengthen electronic
    warfare capabilities. As a tactical aircraft, its expanded flight
    envelope offers much greater speed, altitude, and maneuverability. The
    EA-18G will maintain a high degree of commonality with the F/A-18F,
    retaining the strike fighter and self-protection capabilities, while
    providing air-to-air self-escort to free other assets for strike-
    fighter tasking.
        P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA).--President's budget for
    fiscal year 2007 requests $1.13 billion for continued development of
    the MMA program. The program has successfully completed the system
    requirements review, system functional review, preliminary design
    review, and has entered the detailed design phase. The MMA will replace
    the P-3C Orion aircraft, which has reached the end of its service life.
    The MMA's transformational architecture will integrate its onboard
    mission suite with UAVs, satellite systems, and other external sensors
    to assure maritime access.
        E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.--The President's budget for fiscal year 2007
    provides $498 million for the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye program that
    replaces the older E-2C. Utilizing new state-of-the-art radar, open
    architecture processing systems, and other critical surveillance
    systems, the E-2D provides a two-generation leap forward in capability.
    The Advanced Hawkeye also adds improved surface and air search, air
    traffic control and communications, search and rescue coordination, and
    battle management capabilities. The E-2D completed critical design
    review in October 2005. The first test aircraft's flight is on track
    for fiscal year 2007, with Initial Operating Capability (IOC) expected
    in fiscal year 2011.
        CH-53K Heavy Lift Helicopter Replacement.--The President's budget
    for fiscal year 2007 provides $363 million for the continued
    development of the CH-53K program. The current Marine Corps heavy-lift
    aircraft, the CH-53E, has experienced significant operational wear,
    interoperability, and maintenance supportability challenges. In order
    to support the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) and the Joint Task
    Force (JTF) in the 21st century joint environment, the CH-53K will
    maintain the Marine Corps' heavy-lift capability. Major systems
    improvements include larger and more capable engines, expanded gross
    weight airframe and drive train, advanced composite rotor blades,
    modern interoperable cockpit, external and internal cargo handling
    systems, and improved survivability. The CH-53K will be capable of
    externally lifting 27,000 pounds, more than double the current CH-53E
    ability under similar conditions. Additionally, the CH-53K will be
    capable of carrying 30 combat-loaded troops. Initial Operating
    Capability (IOC) is planned for fiscal year 2015.
        F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.--The President's budget for fiscal year
    2007 provides $2.3 billion for 30 aircraft. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
    continues to be the centerpiece of Navy combat aviation. Enhanced
    warfighting capability investments for the F/A-18E/F introduce a
    transformational radar, helmet-mounted sight, advanced targeting pod,
    and fully integrated weapons system. Significant improvements in combat
    range, payload, survivability, and growth capacity make the F/A-18E/F
    the dominant strike-fighter well into the 21st century. The F/A-18E/F
    is replacing the F-14 and early model F/A-18s. Lethality, flexibility,
    reliability, and survivability of the F/A-18E/F make it the right
    aircraft to fulfill a wide range of future missions.
        MH-60R/MH-60S Seahawk Multi-Mission Combat Helicopters.--The
    President's budget for fiscal year 2007 provides $915 million for 25
    MH-60R and $548 million for 18 MH-60S models. Successful OPEVAL of the
    MH-60R was completed in September 2005 and the first four helicopters
    were delivered to the fleet in December 2005. The MH-60S was approved
    for full-rate production in August 2002 and is currently undergoing
    scheduled block upgrades for combat and airborne mine countermeasure
    missions. The Navy plans to acquire 271 MH-60S models. MH-60R/S
    platforms are produced with 85 percent common components to simplify
    maintenance, logistics, and training.
        KC-130J Hercules Tactical Tanker and Transport.--The fiscal year
    2007 President's budget provides $299 million for the procurement of 4
    KC-130Js. The KC-130J is replacing the Marine Corps' aging fleet of KC-
    130Fs and KC-130Rs. The KC-130J will include warfighter modifications
    such as the addition of aircraft armor, upgrading the aviation
    survivability equipment suite, and improved in-flight refueling pods.
    Twenty-one aircraft have been delivered to date, with Marines making
    the first combat deployment of six KC-130Js in February 2005. The
    Program of Record for the KC-130J is 51 aircraft.
        Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV).--The Department is investing in a
    family of advanced UAVs. Systems such as the Fire Scout and the Broad
    Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS UAS) contain
    a variety of advanced sensors to give warfighters immediate actionable
    intelligence, and in the case of armed UAVs, the ability to strike
    targets that appear for a fleeting moment.
      --Fire Scout--The President's budget for fiscal year 2007 provides
            $38 million for 4 Fire Scout UAVs and $105 million for Fire
            Scout development. The Fire Scout Vertical Takeoff and Landing
            Tactical UAV (VTUAV) is designed to carry modular mission
            payloads and operate using the Tactical Control System (TCS)
            and Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL). Fire Scout will provide
            day/night real time intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance,
            and targeting as well as communications relay and battlefield
            management capabilities to support LCS mission areas.
      --Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System.--The
            fiscal year 2007 President's budget provides $26.4 million for
            the development of the BAMS UAS program. BAMS UAS is integral
            to the Navy's Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
            (ISR) recapitalization strategy providing a persistent,
            maritime, worldwide ISR capability. BAMS will consist of
            unmanned aircraft, payloads and ground/shipboard systems. The
            BAMS program will meet the Navy requirement for a persistent
            ISR capability, and address the enhanced maritime surveillance
            capability. Initial Operating Capability is expected in fiscal
            year 2013.
    Marine Corps Equipment
        Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV).--The fiscal year 2007
    President's budget includes $266 million for procuring 15 EFVs. The EFV
    will be the primary means of tactical mobility for the Marine rifle
    squad during combat operations. As a self-deploying, high speed,
    armored amphibious vehicle, the EFV is capable of transporting 17
    combat-loaded Marines from ships located beyond the horizon to inland
    objectives. The EFV program is in the Systems Development and
    Demonstration (SDD) phase of the acquisition process with IOC scheduled
    for 2010. The Milestone C Operational Assessment began on January 16,
    2006, and is being conducted with four SDD vehicles (three personnel
    (P) variants and one Command & Control (C) variant. An additional five
    SDD vehicles are undergoing extensive Reliability, Availability and
    Maintainability testing to grow vehicle reliability in support of LRIP.
    Certain operational assessment phases will occur three months later
    than planned to synchronize with the return from Iraq of the unit
    designated to participate. This will result in the Milestone C
    Operational Assessment being completed in August 2006, and the
    Milestone C decision in December 2006. This schedule change does not
    breach the program baseline, and will not affect the fiscal year 2007
    budget request.
        Lightweight Howitzer.--The fiscal year 2007 budget provides $94
    million to procure 34 M777A1 Lightweight Howitzers. The M777A1, through
    design innovation, navigation and positioning aides, and digital fire
    control, offers significant improvements in lethality, survivability,
    mobility, and durability over the M198 howitzer. The Marine Corps
    received the first of 356 new howitzers in April 2005.
        Internally Transportable Vehicle (ITV).--The ITV program is a
    Marine Corps-led joint program with the U.S. Special Operations Command
    to field an assault vehicle supporting expeditionary maneuver warfare
    and over-the-horizon amphibious operations. The ITV will provide MAGTF
    combat units with a vehicle that fits internally in the CH-53 and MV-22
    aircraft. IOC is scheduled for September 2006, when a selected infantry
    battalion receives eight ITVs.
        Light Armored Vehicle Product Improvement Program (LAV PIP).--The
    fiscal year 2007 budget includes $26 million for the LAV PIP program,
    which will extend the service life through 2015, improve the readiness,
    survivability, and sustainability of these vehicles, and reduce the LAV
    fleet's operations and support costs. The extension program includes a
    block of vehicle upgrades, incorporating a next generation improved
    thermal sight system, and thermal and visual signature-reduction kits.

                          IMPROVING BUSINESS PRACTICES

        Providing Sailors, Marines, and Department of the Navy civilians
    with high quality facilities, information technology, and an
    environment to achieve goals are fundamental to mission accomplishment.
    As the QDR states, this will demand a revolution in management,
    technology and business practices to reduce redundancies and ensure the
    efficient flow of businesses processes. The Navy and Marine Corps Team
    are implementing continuous improvement initiatives consistent with the
    goals of the President's Management Agenda. These improvements enable
    realignment of resources to increase our output and re-capitalize our
    force. The cornerstone of the continuous improvement effort is the
    implementation of industry proven Lean Six Sigma efficiency
    methodologies in day-to-day operations. The Department of the Navy will
    continually evaluate systems and processes to optimize their
    responsiveness.
        Efficiently Implement BRAC 2005 Decisions.--The BRAC process has
    been a major tool for reducing the domestic base structure and
    generating savings. Continuing to balance the Department's force and
    base structures by eliminating unnecessary infrastructure is critical
    to preserving future readiness. The fiscal year 2007 budget reflects a
    fully financed implementation program that completes all closures and
    realignments within the statutory six-year implementation period. In
    fiscal year 2010 and beyond, annual savings exceed annual costs, and
    the Department will see a positive return on investment.
        Actively Foster Department of the Navy Business Transformation.--
    The Department is transforming people, processes and systems, and
    aggressively adopting proven best commercial practices to support
    business transformation objectives. Initiatives will complement each
    other, resulting in better-controlled, integrated and automated
    processes that deliver more accurate, reliable, and timely financial
    management information. The goal of the Department's business process
    transformation is to provide reliable, accurate, and timely business
    intelligence, supporting resource efficiency and sound business
    decisions. It will involve building a modern, integrated, automated
    environment within the DOD architecture. The Department's business
    transformation continues to evolve, providing the framework within
    which future business processes will operate.
        Since 2002, the Navy and Marine Corps have integrated their
    tactical aircraft to reduce excess capacity and provide equal or
    greater combat capability with fewer resources. Efficiencies gained
    through integration, and investing in more capable aircraft (F/A-18E/F
    Super Hornets and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters) allows the Navy and
    Marine Corps to reduce the number of active and Reserve squadrons while
    continuing to provide flexible, responsive, and interoperable forward
    deployed combat air power. It also allows for reduction in the
    sustainment, maintenance and training requirements, providing
    Operations & Maintenance savings to be invested in more pressing areas.
        The Department will continue to be aggressive in pursuing new
    business initiatives that will make the Navy and Marine Corps more
    efficient, effective and responsive.
    Optimize Management of Naval Installations, including Environmental
            Stewardship
        Building the Navy and Marine Corps' future shore infrastructure
    requires the ``right bases'' in the ``right places'' with the ``right
    capabilities'' at the ``right price.'' The Commander of Naval
    Installations is providing the mechanism for senior Navy leadership to
    guide planning ashore in support of operations afloat through Navy
    Ashore Vision (NAV) 2030. This document develops the first set of
    guiding principles to help leadership plan and execute basing and
    investment strategies. NAV 2030 provides an agile foundation to size
    and locate ashore infrastructure. It capitalizes on innovation and
    effectiveness to sustain fleet readiness and reduce cost. Success in
    realigning and revitalizing the shore infrastructure is vital to our
    future Navy. We must capitalize on joint basing opportunities with our
    sister services to consolidate support delivery, reduce duplication,
    and improve operational efficiency while enhancing combat
    effectiveness.
        Regionalization of Marine Corp installations will bring all Marine
    bases and stations, with the exception of recruit training depots,
    under the purview of five Marine Corps Installation Commands. This
    transformation will provide optimal warfighter support, improve
    alignment, enhance use of regional assets, return Marines to the
    Operating Forces, and reduce costs.
        Utilize Information Technology to Improve Efficiency and
    Effectiveness.--Information Technology (IT) is critical to providing
    secure, accessible, timely and accurate information needed for the 21st
    century Navy and Marine Corps Team. By integrating national security,
    business and war fighting systems, we will reduce redundancies,
    inefficiencies, and time-critical delays across the Department. The use
    of standardized, open architecture protocols and equipment reduces
    costs, enhances flexibility, and improves network security. Today, the
    Navy and Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) is serving over 600,000 users and
    supporting critical business and combat support applications. During
    fiscal year 2006/2007 we will complete the deployment of NMCI seats,
    transition legacy systems and servers to NMCI, shutdown the vast
    majority of our legacy networks, and seamlessly integrate the sea and
    shore networks to provide one secure high performance environment for
    our next generation of combat, combat support and business operations.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Navy and Marine Corps Team is proudly serving our Nation,
    answering the call to protect America and her strategic interests. In
    preparing for the future we will not overlook the present. The fiscal
    year 2007 President's budget request is about both prevailing in
    today's wartime environment and bridging to a successful future. We are
    confident in our warfighting success and contribution to the joint
    force today and will improve it with the investments of this budget. As
    we commit to being responsible stewards of the American treasure, both
    in lives and in dollars, we set a course to do our share to win our
    Nation's wars and prepare to meet future challenges.
        Our Sailors and Marines are bearing the burden of today's war. More
    than just forward deployed, they are continuing to make sacrifices in
    defense of liberty. They are performing superbly, bringing honor and
    renown to the naval service. These proud warriors deserve not only the
    accolades and laurels of a grateful nation, but our full measure of
    support as they continue to serve in defense of the United States.
        In supporting the funding decisions outlined in the fiscal year
    2007 President's budget request, the Congress will continue to provide
    the Department of the Navy the right force for the Nation today, while
    preparing for the uncertainties of tomorrow. We are grateful for the
    unwavering support that Congress has given the Navy and Marine Corps in
    the past, and we appreciate its clear intent to ensure our strategic
    readiness for any future contingency. Its continued support is critical
    to our nation's security and to our ability to meet America's global
    responsibilities.
        On behalf of every Sailor and Marine in today's naval forces and
    the warriors who will serve tomorrow, I thank the Congress for its
    continued support of and confidence in the United States Navy and the
    United States Marine Corps.
                                     ______

               Biographical Sketch of Honorable Donald C. Winter

        Donald C. Winter is the 74th Secretary of the Navy, sworn into
    office on January 3, 2006. As Secretary of the Navy, Dr. Winter leads
    America's Navy and Marine Corps Team and is responsible for an annual
    budget in excess of $125 billion and almost 900,000 people.
        Prior to joining the administration of President George W. Bush,
    Dr. Winter served as a corporate vice president and president of
    Northrop Grumman's Mission Systems sector. In that position he oversaw
    operation of the business and its 18,000 employees, providing
    information technology systems and services; systems engineering and
    analysis; systems development and integration; scientific, engineering,
    and technical services; and enterprise management services. Dr. Winter
    also served on the company's corporate policy council.
        Previously, Dr. Winter served as president and CEO of TRW Systems;
    vice president and deputy general manager for group development of
    TRW's Space & Electronics business; and vice president and general
    manager of the defense systems division of TRW. From 1980 to 1982, he
    was with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency as program
    manager for space acquisition, tracking, and pointing programs.
        The Secretary of the Navy is responsible for all the affairs of the
    Department of the Navy, including recruiting, organizing, supplying,
    equipping, training, mobilizing, and demobilizing. The Secretary also
    oversees the construction, outfitting, and repair of naval ships,
    equipment and facilities. The office is also responsible for the
    formulation and implementation of naval policies and programs that are
    consistent with the national security policies and objectives
    established by the President and the Secretary of Defense. The
    Department of the Navy consists of two uniformed Services: the United
    States Navy and the United States Marine Corps.
        Dr. Winter earned a bachelor's degree (with highest distinction) in
    physics from the University of Rochester in 1969. He received a
    master's degree and a doctorate in physics from the University of
    Michigan in 1970 and 1972, respectively. He is a 1979 graduate of the
    USC Management Policy Institute, a 1987 graduate of the UCLA Executive
    Program, and a 1991 graduate of the Harvard University Program for
    Senior Executives in National and International Security. In 2002, he
    was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you. Admiral, do you have a
    statement?
        Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye,
    Chairman Cochran, and distinguished members of this
    subcommittee, I thank you, as well, for the opportunity to
    appear before you today.
        Senator Inouye, if I may sir, on behalf of the United
    States Navy, allow me to extend to you my deepest and most
    heartfelt sympathies for the loss of your wife Maggie. Please
    know that Deborah and I, as well as all sailors everywhere,
    keep you and your family in our thoughts and prayers. Her loss
    is this Nation's loss.
        Mr. Chairman, I'm honored to appear here as a part of the
    Navy and Marine Corps leadership team, and it truly is a team.
        General Hagee and I have known each other a very long time,
    all the way back to our days together at the Naval Academy.
    He's a friend, a mentor, someone I would gladly call shipmate,
    and I feel honored to have this chance to serve so closely with
    him again.
        I'm also honored to be here alongside our new Secretary.
    Secretary Winter has certainly hit the deckplates running, as
    we like to say, and has already made a lasting impression on
    our Navy men and women. We are better for his leadership.
        Mr. Chairman, I'd like to leave you with three thoughts
    this morning. First, your Navy's actively engaged across the
    globe. More than 100 of your ships and submarines, and over
    36,000 sailors are forward deployed right now. More than half
    those men and women--some 22,000--are serving in the Central
    Command theatre, and half of that number are on the ground in
    combat and combat support roles.
        I too, have traveled much of these first 8 months as CNO,
    spending time with sailors at sea and ashore as well as their
    families. I've seen them take the fight to the enemies of
    freedom on the streets of Baghdad, the waters of the Arabian
    Gulf, and in the Horn of Africa, watched them build base camps
    in the vast open stretches of western Iraq, and stand watch
    over the sources of that country's burgeoning economy.
        I stood next to them at the demilitarized zone (DMZ) in
    Korea, listened to them encourage one another as they rebuild
    cities and towns devastated by natural disasters overseas, and
    here, on our own gulf coast, and pinned medals on the chests of
    doctors and corpsmen who risked life and limb to save the lives
    and limbs of others.
        Your sailors are chasing pirates, flying ground support
    missions from carriers and finding and apprehending terrorist
    leadership, while training our allies to do the same.
        They will be pitching in even more. A Navy admiral takes
    command of the detainee operation in Guantanamo Bay this month.
    We will soon take command of the Joint Task Force in the Horn
    of Africa. Naval officers will soon lead 6 of the 12 U.S. led
    Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan.
        There's incredible talent in our Navy. Our sailors have
    character and resolve and hold themselves and their shipmates
    to high standards. I'm enormously proud of them and their
    families, and grateful for their service at this critical time
    in our history, and they are ready.
        Second, we know we must work hard to stay ready. During my
    confirmation hearing last April, I identified three challenges
    facing our Navy: I need to sustain combat readiness, the need
    to build the right force for the future, and the need to
    transform our manpower and personnel system.
        Everything I've seen these last 8 months has only convinced
    me further that sea power in this century is taking on a whole
    new meaning, and that these are exactly the right priorities.
        What I seek is balance. We must be able to win the big and
    the small wars. Two challenges, one fleet.
        Our fiscal year 2007 budget request, like the Quadrennial
    Defense Review (QDR) itself, helps provide that balance. It
    funds a continued increase in investment over the future years
    defense plan and boosts procurement by over $2 billion over the
    last year, supporting the development of more capable and more
    efficient technologies, funds our operation and maintenance
    accounts, and through pay raises and other incentives helps us
    to attract and retain that wonderful talent of which I spoke.
        Our long-range ship building plan submitted with this
    budget, likewise strikes a balance between near- and long-term
    requirements. The fleet today stands at 281 ships--not enough
    in my view to deliver the joint warfighting capabilities the
    combatant commanders will need over the course of this long
    war.
        Our plan, centered on 11 aircraft carriers with a fleet of
    about 313 ships, affordably meets these needs for the good of
    the Navy, for the good of the Nation and for the good of our
    allies and partners.
        We get a good start in 2007, building 7 new ships across
    five classes--3 of them new classes, I might add, while moving
    the count up to 285.
        And that brings me to point number three, Mr. Chairman.
    Only through your support and the continued, longstanding
    support of this subcommittee and the Congress can we really
    succeed.
        In this very month of March back in 1794 Congress
    authorized the construction of six new frigates. It was a risky
    vote. Longer and broader than traditional frigates, the ships
    design by Joshua Humphries featured an oddly angled hull
    curving inward from the waterline, unusually flush decks, and
    several feet of extra beam. Critics deemed them ungainly. And
    yet they shone against the French in 1799, the Barbary pirates
    in 1804, and the British in the war of 1812. They ushered in a
    new age of fighting sail.
        The greatest of them, the U.S.S. Constitution--moored today
    in Boston--remains our oldest commissioned warship and a symbol
    of both America's independence and her ingenuity.
        The new warships we intend to build with your support,
    DD(X), CVN-21, Virginia-class attack submarine, and the
    Freedom-class littoral combat ships, will likewise usher in a
    new era of sea power and advance America's heritage of
    ingenuity in defense of liberty.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I thank you again for that support, for your time today,
    and for your commitment to the men and women of the United
    States Navy. They and their families are the best I've ever
    seen.
        On their behalf, I stand ready to answer your questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Admiral Michael G. Mullen

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a privilege for me
    to appear before you today, and it is with pride and humility that I
    address you for the first time since becoming the Chief of Naval
    Operations in July of last year. In November of 2005 our service
    celebrated 230 years of honor, courage, and commitment to the ideals
    that make our country a beacon of freedom and democracy spanning the
    world's waterways. The greatest honor I will ever have is to serve and
    represent the Sailors and civilians--the people--who are your United
    States Navy.
        During my confirmation testimony last April, I identified three
    challenges facing our Navy: the need to sustain combat readiness at a
    high level; the need to build a Navy capable of meeting the most
    demanding future threats; and the need to transform our manpower and
    personnel system to better serve and to be more responsive to our
    people.
        Having now been in the job for a little more than six months, I
    have visited our Fleet, have observed numerous operations at home and
    overseas, participated in the comprehensive Quadrennial Defense Review,
    and met with the Chiefs of many foreign navies. This has helped shape
    my perspective of our Navy today and where I believe we need to go in
    the future. It has also validated the challenges I identified last
    April as the right priorities upon which we must focus. It is my belief
    that the QDR and our fiscal year 2007 budget are the first steps toward
    establishing this critical balance between maintaining current
    readiness, building a future Navy, and serving our people. Your Navy
    remains first and foremost a warfighting, seagoing service.
        This budget:
      --Sustains combat readiness--with the right combat capabilities--
            speed, agility, persistence, and dominance--for the right cost.
      --Builds a fleet for the future--balanced, rotational, forward
            deployed and surge capable--the proper size and mix of
            capabilities to empower our enduring and emerging partners,
            deter our adversaries, and defeat our enemies.
      --Develops 21st Century leaders--inherent in a strategy which,
            through a transformed manpower, personnel, training and
            education organization, better competes for the talent our
            country produces and creates the conditions in which the full
            potential of every man and woman serving our Navy can be
            achieved.
        Our future Navy will ensure access and sustainability of the Joint
    Force in blue, green, and brown waters through globally distributed and
    networked operations. It will do so in partnership with the Marine
    Corps, and will be symbiotic with the Coast Guard, as envisioned in the
    President's National Strategy for Maritime Security. It will be a
    larger and more lethal fleet of faster ships, with capacity to
    overmatch our most capable adversaries, including any future strategic
    competitors, and to further develop our emerging and enduring
    partnerships worldwide. It will rely on Joint seabasing that will
    provide for sustained, air and ground anti-access operations in access-
    restricted environments. It will leverage both manned and unmanned
    capabilities. It will build upon the programmatic foundation of
    FORCEnet and Sea Power 21.
        Sea Power in this new century will require speed, agility,
    persistence, and dominance. To achieve this your Navy must deliver a
    balanced force of the right capabilities, the right mix, the right
    size, at the right cost.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        During my recent tour in Europe, as Commander U.S. Naval Forces and
    Commander, Joint Force Command, Naples I gained an extraordinary
    appreciation of the partnership of nations--not only through NATO's
    engagement in the Global War on Terror, Operation ACTIVE ENDEAVOR in
    the Mediterranean, and NATO's training mission in Iraq--but through the
    multitude of operations conducted daily with our Allies and emerging
    partners throughout the European Command Area of Responsibility. I also
    learned, first hand, that staying the course in post-conflict Bosnia
    and Kosovo had paid rich dividends as military presence was eventually
    transitioned to civilian infrastructures and maturing rule of law.
    Here, too, partnerships were the key, including multi-national
    militaries, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and interagency and
    international community players. Interoperability and timely
    communication remain critical. Throughout Europe, the Caucasus, and
    Africa I witnessed the true value of our Navy's work with emerging and
    enduring partners through the Theater Security Cooperation program. We
    are building confidence, trust, and lasting relationships that will
    most assuredly prevent future crises and conflicts.
        In July of last year I took over a Navy in great shape, with
    Sailors and civilians at the peak of readiness and proud of their
    warfighting ethos. I set about defining the capabilities needed to
    remain strong and to prevail in this new century. It wasn't long,
    though, before hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated our Gulf coast. I
    was reminded of the power of the sea, and was struck by the tremendous
    potential of ``Sea Power.'' Our Navy answered the call just as we had
    after the Indonesian tsunami, where no other institution in the world
    was better equipped or more ready to respond than your Navy. In a
    powerful demonstration of the flexibility provided by the Fleet
    Response Plan, 23 ships sailed to the Gulf. The hospital ship USNS
    COMFORT, sister ship to the MERCY that had opened the world's eyes to
    America's compassion following the tsunami, was underway within 72
    hours.
        USS BATAAN was the first Navy responder, arriving in the vicinity
    of New Orleans one day after Katrina's landfall, coordinating
    helicopter rescue efforts with the Coast Guard and providing medical
    care to some 800 evacuees. HSV-2 SWIFT's high speed and shallow draft
    combined to make it an ideal platform for the delivery of relief
    supplies and the support of other platforms operating in the Gulf area,
    just as it had during relief operations in Indonesia. In both cases,
    SWIFT was able to reach ports inaccessible to other ships in the
    logistics force and played a critical role in the early delivery of
    supplies. More than 3,300 Seabees paved the way to hurricane recovery
    by clearing 750 miles of roads, removing more than 20,000 tons of
    debris, restoring 60 schools serving 40,000 students, and completing
    453 utility projects.
        The crew of USS TORTUGA essentially conducted a non-combatant
    evacuation in the flooded parishes of New Orleans--taking their boats
    inland to pull people out of dilapidated houses. The HARRY S TRUMAN,
    uncharacteristically carrying no strike aircraft, anchored off shore
    with 19 helicopters embarked and provided a ready deck for rescue
    helicopters that saved lives through dramatically decreased response
    times. USS IWO JIMA, pier side in downtown New Orleans, served as the
    city's only functional airport, command center, hotel and hospital. I
    met with Vice Admiral Thad Allen of the Coast Guard aboard IWO JIMA
    shortly after he had taken command of FEMA's efforts--and he raved
    about the significant role the ship was playing in the crisis and the
    brilliant performance of her crew.
        And this reminded me of a comment I had heard in Europe following
    our tsunami relief effort from an individual representing an NGO. She
    said, ``Thank God for the U.S. Navy. No other institution in the world
    could have responded with that level of effort so quickly.'' And it
    struck me that our Navy really is like a ``city at sea,'' offering hope
    and relief in times of crisis. We have seen it again, in the wake of
    the Pakistani earthquake, where Navy ships, aircraft, Seabees and
    medical personnel lent a helping hand and made a difference in winning
    hearts and minds in the Global War on Terror.
        In September I addressed the International Sea Symposium--49 Chiefs
    of Navy and Coast Guard and representatives from 72 countries in
    Newport, Rhode Island. My topic was ``Establishing a Global Network of
    Maritime Nations for a Free and Secure Maritime Domain.'' And while I
    asked the participants to imagine an international maritime force of
    1,000 ships--the world's navies and coast guards working together to
    face the challenges of a new era--I realized this was becoming a
    reality before my very eyes. There were meaningful discussions taking
    place regarding regional cooperation in countering piracy, terror, and
    the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. There were
    testimonials from NATO and ASEAN navies, and from South American and
    African navies. And it occurred to me that this is what Sea Power in
    the 21st Century is all about. The U.S. Navy has taken the lead as a
    global maritime force for good, and there are plenty of nations willing
    and eager to do their part.
        But the Navy's capabilities extend beyond traditional missions of
    sea borne shaping and stability operations, conventional and irregular
    warfare, freedom of navigation, homeland security, and deterrence. In
    fact, the Navy is tackling new missions every day that don't involve
    ships. More than 10,000 sailors are currently on the ground in the
    CENTCOM AOR, 4,000 of whom are in Iraq. In March of this year, the Navy
    will take command of the detainee mission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We
    recently took command of a new high security prison in Iraq. In April,
    a Navy Admiral will take command of the Joint Task Force Horn of Africa
    in Djibouti.
        This is in addition to counter piracy operations off east Africa
    and a return visit to Southeast Asia and the South Pacific from Navy
    medical personnel aboard USNS MERCY. Soon, we will have a riverine
    capability that will extend the outreach of our newly established Navy
    Expeditionary Combat Command and Expeditionary Security Force into the
    world's shallow waterways. Whether extending a helping hand or fixing,
    finding and finishing our enemies, we are redefining the limits and
    meaning of Sea Power in the 21st Century.
        Over the past two months, I have visited our Sailors at Guantanamo
    and in the CENTCOM AOR, spending time in Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain,
    Djibouti and at sea in the North Arabian Gulf. I have also recently
    been to Japan, Korea, Guam, and Hawaii. In every respect, these were
    terrific trips, eye-opening and encouraging. Our people are doing
    amazing things. Their morale is high, their sense of accomplishment
    firm. I didn't speak with a single Sailor who didn't know how, or to
    what degree, his or her job contributed to the overall effort in this
    war. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find one who didn't believe
    what he or she was doing was the most important thing that could be
    done.
        It was against this operational backdrop that we tackled the QDR,
    the most comprehensive review of its type since the first was produced
    more than a decade ago. For the first time, the QDR was conducted in a
    time of war. It represents an important step in a continuum of
    transformation that began more than five years ago. The Navy was an
    integral participant in the QDR process and I am confident in the
    course it sets for DOD and the Navy.
        QDR 2006 has helped shape a Naval force with increased capability
    and capacity. Specifically it:
      --Re-affirms the need for a forward deployed, rotational, and surge
            capable force to provide persistent awareness and decisive
            joint combat power when and where needed;
      --Supports a modern, fast, and lethal fleet of ships able to fight in
            all waters around the globe;
      --Expands capability to conduct conventional and irregular warfare,
            especially in littoral waters;
      --Expects the Navy and Marine Corps team to project its combined air,
            land, and sea power from innovative ``sea bases'' of ships and
            personnel, regardless of access to land bases. This will better
            enable us to engage in missions ranging from traditional combat
            and special operations to humanitarian assistance and disaster
            relief.
      --Increases our ability to enhance the capabilities and capacity of
            partner nations.
      --Improves DOD's contribution to the active, layered defense of our
            homeland, working closely with the United States Coast Guard
            and other agencies.
      --Provides 60 percent of our submarines and six operational aircraft
            carriers to the Pacific.
        In summary, the QDR and my own recent experiences, further support
    my three priorities and have helped shape the following eight tenets
    that guide my Vision for the 21st Century Navy:
        1. America is and will remain a maritime nation.
        2. We live in a challenging new era.
        3. The Navy will remain rotational, forward deployed, and surge
    capable.
        4. The level of maritime cooperation will increase.
        5. New opportunities and security challenges require new skills.
        6. Calculating the size of the force demands balance between
    capabilities, capacity, and fiscal reality.
        7. The future fleet will be more capable, larger, and more lethal.
        8. Sea Power 21 will remain the framework for our Navy's ongoing
    transformation.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Navy's VISION
        Americans secure at home and abroad; sea and air lanes open and
    free for the peaceful, productive movement of international commerce;
    enduring national and international naval relationships that remain
    strong and true; steadily deepening cooperation among the maritime
    forces of emerging partner nations; and a combat-ready Navy--forward-
    deployed, rotational and surge capable--large enough, agile enough, and
    lethal enough to deter any threat and defeat any foe in support of the
    Joint Force.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                              SUSTAINING READINESS

    Taking a Fix
                Current Operations:
        We are a maritime nation, and we are at war. For the last 230
    years, our Navy has defended our shores, kept our sea-lanes free, and
    promoted our national interests around the globe. For generations, our
    Navy has been the world's premier maritime force for freedom, time and
    again proving its flexibility and unique adaptability in support of
    liberty, national security, and our economic viability.
        Your Navy today is in great shape. Readiness is high. Maintenance
    is being performed faster and more efficiently. Recruiting and
    retention remain strong. Our people are motivated, well trained and
    battle-tested. They understand the mission, their role in it, and the
    importance of the effects they are achieving. In addition to the
    critical strategic deterrence our forward presence and global strike
    capabilities represent, there are more than 10,000 of our shipmates on
    the ground in Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa. Many
    thousands more are deployed aboard ships at sea in direct support of
    the Global War on Terror and regional deterrence, strengthening
    capabilities and relationships with our enduring and emerging partners,
    and dissuading potential adversaries from attempting to threaten our
    freedom at home or abroad. They are performing magnificently.

                                    Figure 1

        While numbers vary slightly with daily operations, on February 15,
    2006 we had 97 ships on deployment (35 percent of the Fleet) and 142
    ships underway (51 percent of the Fleet) serving our Combatant
    Commanders in every theater of operation; this includes six aircraft
    carriers, seven big deck amphibious ships (LHA/LHD), and 29 submarines
    (Figure 1). On that day there were 2,614 active and reserve Seabees
    working tirelessly overseas to provide our Joint force and many
    civilians with vital infrastructure such as roads, runways, schools,
    and hospitals. There were also 3,574 of our active and reserve medical
    corps serving in foreign and sometimes hostile environments.
    Additionally, 673 members of the Navy Special Warfare community were
    deployed overseas (of 3,633 deployable), as were 256 Explosive Ordnance
    Disposal personnel (of 1,321 available to deploy), and 838 security
    personnel (of 5,929 deployable).
        On February 15, 2006, there were 39,775 of our Sailors deployed in
    support of the nation's interests in the Persian Gulf, the
    Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific, continuing
    operations like strategic deterrence; intelligence, surveillance and
    reconnaissance missions; Extended Maritime Interdiction, counter piracy
    and counter-drug patrols. No less vital are the sailors and civilians--
    the Total Navy--who serve the shore-based infrastructure that underpins
    our Fleet worldwide.
        The fiscal year 2007 budget provides funds necessary to support 36
    underway days per quarter of the active operational tempo (OPTEMPO) for
    deployed forces and 24 underway days per quarter for non-deployed
    forces (primarily used for training). Our fiscal year 2007 baseline
    budget estimates also include reductions to peacetime OPTEMPO levels.
    For aircraft carrier OPTEMPO, the fiscal year 2007 budget supports the
    ``6+1'' surge readiness level. As in fiscal year 2006, it is
    anticipated that operational requirements will continue to exceed
    peacetime levels in fiscal year 2007.
        Oceans that once served as insulating barriers now provide open
    access to friends and enemies alike. The world's waterways are open
    highways that are becoming more congested with pirates and those
    trafficking in drugs, weapons of mass destruction, illegal immigrants,
    slaves, criminals, and terrorists. 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade
    travels by water and that volume is expected to double by 2020. Our
    nation's prosperity depends upon unimpeded maritime commerce just as
    our security demands continued maritime dominance. Sea Power in the
    21st Century must provide this assurance while serving as freedom's
    global lifeline.
        Whether spearheading Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) by providing
    sovereign deck space from which to launch the war in Afghanistan,
    continuing to support ground operations in Iraq from the sea, in the
    air and on the land as part of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF),
    conducting deterrence operations in the Persian Gulf, responding to
    humanitarian crisis in Indonesia or Pakistan, patrolling for pirates
    and interacting with developing navies in Africa, serving with the NATO
    Response Force in Europe, supporting counter-terrorism operations in
    the Philippines, exercising with the navies of Russia and India, or
    remaining keenly vigilant while expanding cooperative interaction with
    others, our Navy must work in non-traditional ways with our global
    partners to preclude or forestall conflict. Equally important is that
    our Navy maintain its strategic deterrence and global strike
    capabilities that remain vital to our nation's defense.
                Emerging Missions:
        In March of this year, the Navy will take command of Joint Task
    Force Guantanamo, relieving the U.S. Army of that mission. In May of
    this year, the Navy will take command of the Joint Task Force, Horn of
    Africa, relieving hundreds of Marines who have led that effort since
    October 2002. Almost 500 sailors have already begun performing security
    duties at Fort Suse Prison in Iraq.
        As the Navy develops shallow water and riverine capabilities, we
    will seek increasing synergies with the Coast Guard, at home and
    abroad, exploring complementary design, acquisition, operations and
    training initiatives. Working cooperatively with the Joint Services,
    inter-agency, allied, coalition, and non-governmental organizations,
    our Navy will expand our global Maritime Domain Awareness and provide
    unique operational options for the President of the United States and
    our Combatant Commanders.
    Plotting the Course: Where we're heading in Sustaining Readiness
        The world has entered a ``new era'' in which our military is
    confronting a highly dynamic security environment far more complex,
    uncertain, and potentially threatening than any we have faced before.
    While this is a time of promise and developing partnerships, it is also
    an era of irregular and increasingly unrestricted warfare. Our
    adversaries, unable and unwilling in some cases to match our
    technological warfighting advantage, will increasingly resort to
    whatever means are available to wreak havoc and destruction--
    physically, economically, and psychologically--unhindered and
    unconstrained by moral conscience or social norms. To be effective in
    this environment, our Combatant Commanders need tools that are not only
    instruments of war, but implements for stability, security, and
    reconstruction.
        To be successful as an interdependent part of the U.S. Joint Force,
    our Navy must be balanced. We must be balanced in our support of
    diplomatic, informational, military and economic efforts intended to
    positively influence the world's diverse people and cultures. We must
    be balanced in our global maritime presence: providing non-threatening
    outreach to emerging and enduring partners while demonstrating
    overwhelming military superiority and unflinching determination to our
    adversaries.
        We must at the same time represent hope and empowerment to our
    friends and convincing deterrence to our enemies. The United States
    Navy will need to be a highly visible, positive, engaged, and
    reassuring presence among the global maritime community of nations--
    sometimes a ``cop on the beat,'' but always a respected and valued
    member of a global neighborhood watch. We must encourage nations to
    provide security within their territorial waters and to seal seams
    between neighbors, either by accepting assistance to improve their own
    capabilities, or through collective security and information sharing
    arrangements.
        We must adopt a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to
    regional engagement, synchronizing our efforts with other services,
    agencies, and allied nations through the Theater Security Cooperation
    program, shaping, and stability operations. Wherever the opportunity
    exists, we must develop and sustain relationships that will help
    improve the capacity of our emerging partners' maritime forces. We will
    do this through the deployment of expeditionary teams capable of
    addressing specific developmental deficiencies. From personnel
    specialists and base infrastructure advisors, to trainers afloat and
    network consultants, these tailored teams will foster the ability of
    partner nations to contribute to collective security and shared
    maritime domain awareness, and to fend off threats to their economic
    and regional stability.
        To enable our operations at home and away, our Navy, in partnership
    with the Coast Guard, must be supported by the right information at the
    right time--expanding Maritime Domain Awareness throughout the global
    commons and the world's shallow waterways. In pursuit of pervasive and
    persistent Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, however, we
    must ensure the ``unblinking eye'' does not become an ``unthinking''
    eye. In a world of growing global connectivity, the volume of
    information we are able to collect matters less than our ability to
    identify and understand what is important. Our Sailors must learn to
    recognize what matters, to comprehend the implications of the complex
    information they gather, so that we can act upon it instantly, with the
    right capabilities, when required to do so.
        Naval Intelligence remains focused on addressing the multitude of
    intelligence requirements from the fleet, theater, and National
    decision makers, augmenting and transforming its intelligence
    capability to support the increasing range of Navy missions. The
    intelligence and cryptologic resources requested in the President's
    budget submission will allow the Navy to remain postured to support the
    war against terror, defend the homeland, shape the environment
    overseas, and counter the most capable potential adversaries.
        In concert with interagency and foreign partners, we are developing
    Global Maritime Intelligence Integration (GMII) as part of Global
    Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) in support of Joint and Navy
    operations. It is no longer acceptable to focus intelligence only on
    the most obvious potential threats. We need, and are building, a
    capability that will lead us to a more complete understanding of the
    maritime environment--close to home and abroad. We are shaping our
    relatively small Naval Intelligence cadre to work more closely with
    Special Operations Forces, the interagency, the Coast Guard, Joint
    forces, and our international partners. The establishment of a National
    Maritime Intelligence Center will further enhance our Maritime Domain
    Awareness.
        Maritime Domain Awareness contributes to the Navy's ability to
    provide flexible forward presence such as that provided by the Fleet
    Response Plan (FRP).
        The Fleet Response Plan is the maintenance, training, and
    operational framework through which the Navy meets global Combatant
    Commander demand signals for traditional (e.g., GWOT, major combat
    operations, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, shaping and
    stability operations, counter piracy, etc.) and emerging mission sets
    (e.g., riverine warfare, NECC, medical outreach). FRP is mission-
    driven, capabilities-based, and provides the right readiness at the
    right time (within fiscal constraints). It enables responsive and
    dependable forward presence. With FRP we can deploy a more agile,
    flexible and scalable naval force capable of surging quickly to deal
    with unexpected threats, humanitarian disasters, and contingency
    operations.
        The Fleet Response Plan maximizes the Navy's ability to respond to
    emergent crises, changes the way ships are maintained, and keeps the
    Navy at a high state of readiness. FRP provides the capability of
    deploying numerous Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs), in whole or in part,
    immediately to wherever in the world the mission calls, with an
    additional CSG deploying within 90 days. This planning is currently
    structured to fulfill a 6 + 1 goal: six CSGs would be ready to deploy
    within 30 days of notification and another within 90 days.
        The ability to surge dramatically shortens response times to any
    contingency and enables the United States to increase global presence-
    with-a-purpose as needed. Commander Fleet Forces Command, based in
    Norfolk, Virginia, is leading the implementation of the FRP across the
    Navy. Last fall, the FRP concept was vividly validated by the response
    to Hurricane Katrina, in which 23 ships were immediately made available
    for relief efforts. FRP will further help to facilitate Navy's
    establishment and defense of the Joint Sea Base, allowing for a reduced
    footprint ashore in anti-access operations.
        In the Pacific, response time is exacerbated by the tyranny of
    distance. Consistent with the global shift of trade and transport, the
    QDR has recognized the Navy's need to shift more strategic assets to
    this vital and rapidly developing theater. In the future, approximately
    60 percent of our submarines and six operational aircraft carriers will
    be based in the Pacific. The Fleet Response Plan and basing options
    will provide a rheostat to meet foreseeable forward presence
    requirements.
        As FRP bolsters fleet effectiveness and efficiency, so too does the
    aviation maintenance program called AIRSpeed.
        AIRSpeed is the Naval Aviation business model that has increased
    the combat effectiveness of Naval Aviation through more efficient
    business practices. The AIRSpeed program balances and aligns
    maintenance and supply activities to end-user demands by ensuring the
    right material is in the right place, at the right time and at the
    right cost. We are committed to implementing this throughout the Navy.
    AIRSpeed has moved Naval Aviation away from ``readiness at any cost''
    to ``cost-wise readiness'' practices, enabling Naval Aviation to answer
    the call in every corner of the globe.
        Another initiative to improve global readiness addresses the
    expeditionary nature of emerging missions ashore and in coastal
    waterways. In January of this year, the Navy officially established the
    Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) to help meet some of the
    asymmetric challenges of the 21st Century. The NECC will serve as a
    functional command in control of manning, training, equipping, and
    organizing forces that will execute force protection, shore-based
    logistical support, and construction missions across the Joint
    operational spectrum.
        The Navy plays a vital role in direct and indirect support of Joint
    stability and shaping operations worldwide. To this end, NECC will re-
    establish a riverine force to close gaps in very shallow-water littoral
    areas, ensuring access to the world's waterways. NECC will be the
    single advocate for the Expeditionary Security Force, to include
    existing forces/missions (Seabees, Explosive Ordnance Disposal,
    Expeditionary Security, Naval Coastal Warfare, Mobile Diving and
    Salvage, Port Handlers, etc) and key new navy capabilities (Riverine,
    Maritime Civil Affairs Group, Expeditionary Training Team, advanced
    Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure, etc.).
        Our Navy must stand ready to support the current critical and
    emerging requirements of the Combatant Commanders. Whether this is
    accomplished through grey hulls, white ships, hard hats, blue shirts,
    or red crosses, we need to complement the Fleet Response Plan with
    sustainable Sea Basing, intelligently and selectively applied Sea Swap,
    and a Forward Deployed Naval Force.
    Getting Underway: Programs and Practices in Support of Sustaining
            Readiness
        Through FRP, the deployment of adaptable force packages, and the
    strategic realignment of key assets, the Navy will increase its ability
    to aggregate and disaggregate the force as required to provide
    persistent forward presence and overwhelming combat power. This
    supports the nation's requirement for an immediate, credible response
    and sustainable naval forces necessary not only to fight the GWOT, but
    also to support a meaningful naval presence in key areas of concern to
    U.S. strategy and policy.
        Programs and practices of particular interest include:
        Fleet Response Plan.--As highlighted by the QDR, the Fleet Response
    Plan (FRP) is an on-going mission-driven means to provide the right
    readiness at the right time (within fiscal constraints). FRP enables
    responsive forward presence and drives our ability to answer the
    Combatant Commanders' demand signals. With FRP, Navy has deployed and
    developed a more agile, flexible and scalable naval force capable of
    surging quickly to deal with unexpected threats, humanitarian disasters
    and contingency operations.
        Sea Swap.--Sea Swap is an initiative designed to keep a single hull
    continuously deployed in a given theater, replacing the entire crew at
    six-months intervals. The primary objective is to effectively and
    efficiently increase forward Naval presence without increasing
    operating cost. Navy commenced its second Sea Swap experiment in March
    2005 with three East Coast destroyers--USS GONZALEZ (DDG 66), USS
    LABOON (DDG 58), and USS STOUT (DDG 55). The first of the three
    overseas swapping of the crews occurred in September 2005. While the
    results of these experiments are still being evaluated, it is clear
    that when selectively applied, Sea Swap will offer greater flexibility
    in the deployment of a variety of platforms.
        Forward Deployed Naval Forces (Japan).--The government of Japan has
    agreed to have USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73) replace the USS KITTY
    HAWK (CV 63) as our forward deployed aircraft carrier at the Yokosuka
    naval base. The move represents a strong commitment to the security of
    the Asian Pacific region and our alliance. The GEORGE WASHINGTON will
    become the first nuclear aircraft carrier to join the Navy's
    permanently forward deployed naval forces (FDNF), replacing the
    conventionally powered the KITTY HAWK in 2008.
        Facilities Recapitalization.--Facilities Recapitalization is
    comprised of Modernization and Restoration. Modernization counters
    obsolescence by updating and renewing a facility to new standards or
    functions without changing the fundamental facility size. Restoration
    includes repairs necessary to restore degraded facilities to working
    condition beyond design service life (C3/C4 corrections) or to fix
    accidental damage from natural disaster, fire, accident, etc. Our goal
    is to modernize facilities at a rate of 67 years (Recap Rate). The
    restoration goal is to eliminate all C3/C4 deficiencies by 2013.
        Facilities Sustainment.--Facilities Sustainment includes those
    maintenance and repair activities necessary to keep facilities in
    working order through their design service life. It includes regularly
    scheduled maintenance and major repairs or replacement of facility
    components that are expected to occur periodically throughout the life
    cycle of facilities. The fiscal year 2007 Sustainment Rate is 91
    percent of the Facility Sustainment Model (FSM).
        Utilities Privatization (UP).--Navy had originally planned to
    complete all competitive UP evaluations by September 2005. However,
    delays for 159 utilities systems have extended the completion schedule.
    To date, Navy has completed Source Selection decisions for 486 of our
    645 systems.
        Environment and Marine Mammal Protection Act.--Effective
    Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) is critical to ensuring the Navy's ability
    to defend national interests around the world. The Navy's ASW forces
    must be highly trained and capable in littoral-water operations in
    order to provide assured access for the Joint Force to strategic areas
    worldwide.
        The Navy takes seriously our responsibility to act as good stewards
    of our natural resources and incorporates protective measures into
    training to minimize effects on the environment. The Navy is committed
    to environmental compliance, and we are committed to working with those
    interested in protecting valuable environmental resources.
        The Navy's use of sonar, and the ability to test and train with it,
    is critical to operational readiness and our national defense.
    Effective use of active sonar is a perishable skill that demands
    realistic training. The Navy recognizes that such active sonar testing
    and training must be accomplished in an environmentally sound manner
    that is science-based and protective of marine life.
        The Navy has recently published a Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement (DEIS) for an Undersea Warfare Training Range (USWTR) to be
    located off of the East Coast of the United States. This DEIS marks the
    first time the Navy will apply for a permit under the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act for a permanent training range vice a one-time training
    authorization. The Navy's Fleet Forces Command and Regional Staffs are
    cooperating with federal and state agencies throughout the process to
    keep them informed and to coordinate for the appropriate permits.
        Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR).--Navy Human
    Intelligence (HUMINT) initiatives remain consistent with those of
    USD(I) and, in cooperation with Defense HUMINT, we are creating Navy
    manned, maritime collection elements worldwide. These elements will
    provide maritime focused collection capability, postured to capitalize
    on regional opportunities, and prosecute the GWOT and other non-
    traditional missions.
        Furthermore, the Navy has established Maritime Interception
    Operations (MIO) Intelligence Exploitation Teams to increase on-scene
    intelligence collection and exploitation during MIO boardings in
    support of OEF and OIF. This unique effort will significantly reduce
    time lags between MIO boardings and analysis of intelligence collected.
        Additionally, Navy is creating a cadre of trained and certified
    Navy interrogators to sustain operations at the Joint Interrogation
    Facility at Guantanamo Naval Base, Cuba and to support future Joint
    interrogation requirements.
        Advanced Deployable System (ADS) is a rapid, unobtrusively deployed
    undersea surveillance system and capability focused against enemy
    diesel-electric submarines, nuclear submarines, high-interest merchant
    shipping and the detection of sea-mine laying activities in the
    littorals.
        COBRA JUDY Replacement (CJR) is a deployed shipboard radar system
    designed to collect high fidelity radar data in support of treaty
    monitoring obligations and U.S. missile defense system testing. CJR is
    the functional and operational replacement for the current COBRA JUDY
    system and the USNS Observation Island hull, which has reached the end
    of its service life.
        Submarine Support Equipment Program (SSEP) develops Electronic
    Warfare Support (EWS) systems improvements to enhance operational
    effectiveness in the increasingly dense and sophisticated
    electromagnetic/electro-optic littoral environment. SSEP provides agile
    threat warning capability to respond to emerging threats.
        Distributed Common Ground/Surface Systems (DCGS) is a Joint family
    of interconnected C4I systems for posting, processing, exploiting, and
    updating ISR information. The Common Data Link (CDL) program ensures
    interoperability between the airborne ISR platforms and the family of
    ground systems.

                           BUILDING THE FUTURE FORCE

    Taking a Fix
        The QDR included a rigorous evaluation of requirements and
    budgetary constraints that will shape how we confront the very
    uncertain and challenging security environment of this new century and
    the ``long war'' in which we are currently engaged. The fleet we are
    building today, and the leaders we are training, will be the Navy that
    confronts tomorrow's challenges. The environment in which that force
    operates will be very different from that in which we have come of age.
        Due to the fiscal and temporal realities associated with the design
    and development of modern, sophisticated weapons systems, the Navy is
    continuing to transform. As recognized in the QDR, the size and
    capabilities of our force are driven by the challenges we will face.
    The capacity of the force is determined by its global posture in
    peacetime and the requirement to respond from this posture, as well as
    to surge, in crisis. In the case of our Navy, it is based upon the need
    for a ubiquitous but carefully tailored maritime presence that can
    provide our President and our allies with strategic options in support
    of dynamic security requirements.
        The Navy recently submitted to Congress our 30-Year Shipbuilding
    Plan designed to replenish the fleet, while stabilizing workload and
    funding requirements. A stable plan will allow the shipbuilding
    industry to maintain critical skills and to make sound corporate
    decisions to best meet the Navy's projected shipbuilding requirements.
        A stable shipbuilding industry is essential to sustain optimum
    employment levels and retain critical skills to meet our requirements
    for an affordable and capable force structure. We must align the
    industrial base for long-term force development through advanced
    procurement and incentivized cost savings. We must have a robust enough
    industrial base to withstand natural disaster or catastrophic attack.
    We must build ships more efficiently, cost effectively, and quickly. To
    do this, we are committed to help provide stability in the shipbuilding
    plan and rigorously control requirements. Costs and production
    schedules must be kept within contractual limits. Industry must be
    viewed as a trusted partner while we provide a stable baseline upon
    which to plan.
        The 2007 Annual Long Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels
    is an investment plan that is both executable and affordable based on
    balancing several factors: naval force operational capability, risk,
    and the ability of the shipbuilding industrial base to execute the
    plan. The Navy continues to analyze operational requirements, ship
    designs, costs, acquisition plans, tools, and industrial base capacity
    to further improve its shipbuilding plan. Full funding and support for
    execution of this plan is crucial to transforming the Navy to a force
    tuned to the 21st Century and built upon the foundation of Sea Power 21
    and FORCEnet.
        Our Sea Strike capability will continue to revolve around Carrier
    and Expeditionary Strike Groups, with sufficient lift, sustainability,
    and TACAIR assets to meet irregular and conventional Joint warfighting
    requirements.
        Sea Basing provides assured access to the Joint force by keeping
    the logistics tail safely at sea while putting the teeth of the combat
    forces ashore. The iron mountain of equipment we staged on land in
    earlier operations, now will come from international waters at sea,
    minimizing our footprint ashore and the associated permissions required
    from host nations. Our Sea Basing will be facilitated by large deck,
    expeditionary warfare ships and connectors, by heavy lift and transport
    aircraft, by Maritime Prepositioning Forces, and by the combat
    logistics force.
        Our Sea Shield capabilities will be advantaged by advanced Anti-
    Submarine Warfare, inter-netted Under Sea Warfare, and Theater
    Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD) technologies, and our submarine fleet
    will need to maintain its technological edge over all adversaries in
    warfighting, ISR, detectability, and survivability.
        As a primary catalyst for naval transformation, FORCEnet has the
    potential to fundamentally transform operations themselves, generating
    greater effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptability. Further, through
    the transformation of systems related to training, administration,
    recruitment and acquisition, FORCEnet is expected to influence the
    entire naval enterprise.
        As highlighted by the QDR, achieving the full potential of net-
    centric warfare requires viewing information as an enterprise asset to
    be shared and as a weapon system to be protected. The underlying power
    of FORCEnet derives from leveraging the network effect, which causes
    the value of a product or service in a network to increase
    exponentially as the number of those using it increases. FORCEnet will
    extend visibility of information and will support a more horizontal
    command, control and communications structure.
        To better fight the Global War on Terror and prevent piracy and the
    trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, humans, and narcotics we
    will need faster, multi-mission ships, and the right mix of
    helicopters, small boats, and combat capabilities. And to expand the
    number of maritime nations able to contribute to regional stability and
    join us in the fight against violent extremism, we will need shallow
    draft ships and more helicopters to better support a variety of
    training, outreach, and civil affairs operations.
    Plotting the Course: Where we're heading in Building the Future Force
        In building the Navy of the future, access is as important as
    presence. Whether delivering training, humanitarian assistance, or
    lethal combat power our Navy cannot be restricted in its access to the
    world's navigable waterways. Conducting disbursed and networked
    operations, with the proper force mix, people, and tools, will enable
    us to simultaneously fight an irregular war, defend the homeland, and
    participate in pro-active, cooperative engagement on a day-to-day basis
    while retaining the capability to rapidly aggregate dominant combat
    power to deter or conduct Major Combat Operations should they arise.
                Two challenges, one Navy.

                                    Figure 2

        As part of the QDR process, the Navy used a capability-based
    approach (shown above in Figure 2) to calculate the size and
    composition of the future force required to meet expected Joint force
    demands in peace and in the most stressing construct of the Defense
    Planning Guidance. Further, we evaluated detailed assessments of risk
    associated with affordability and instabilities in the industrial base.
    The analysis concluded that a fleet of about 313 ships is the force
    necessary to meet all of the demands, and to pace the most advanced
    technological challengers well into the future, with an acceptable
    level of risk. The Navy expects to achieve this force structure by
    fiscal year 2012.
        Through transformation, recapitalization and modernization, we seek
    a balanced force that delivers speed, agility, persistence, and
    dominance--characterized by disbursed and networked operations,
    comprehensive maritime domain awareness, cooperative engagement with
    Allies and partners, and lethal combat capabilities.
        Our Naval aviation capabilities are a vital part of this balanced
    force. Here, too, we must invest in the technology and platforms that
    will carry us into a future Joint environment of low observability,
    electronic attack, unmanned aerial vehicles, broad ocean surveillance
    and reconnaissance, complex command and control, and precision strike.
    We must outpace and overmatch the most capable technological
    competitors and overcome the most difficult and time-critical targeting
    challenges.
        Aircraft carrier-based strike capability is a concrete example of
    the Navy's ongoing transformation. During Operation Desert Storm it
    took, on average, more than one ``sortie'' or flight of strike aircraft
    to engage a single target. This trend was reversed during Operation
    IRAQI FREEDOM as technology and operations improved, allowing multiple
    targets to be engaged per single flight. For example, it took two
    divisions (eight aircraft) to attack and destroy a single bridge during
    Desert Storm, but two divisions of F/A-18C Hornets carrying GPS guided
    bombs attacked more than eight aim points with precision during
    Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.
        In 2020, our Carrier Air Wings with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and F-
    35C Joint Strike Fighters will attack targets at nearly twice the range
    currently possible. They will do this in the highest threat
    environments without the extensive tanker support required today, and
    they will destroy more targets with 24/7 persistence.
        As underscored by the response to the tsunami and hurricanes, we
    must also have a robust rotary wing capacity. This will be achieved
    primarily through recapitalization and modernization programs such as
    the CH-53X and the MH-60R/S. The flexibility and versatility of rotary
    winged aircraft have proven increasingly more valuable in support of
    the Global War on Terror, Anti-Submarine Warfare, humanitarian and
    disaster relief operations, Theater Security Cooperation programs, and
    logistics support. We must consider this in future acquisition
    planning.
        The Navy's challenge is to build an affordable fleet for the future
    with the capability and capacity to meet Joint demands for naval forces
    that range from Homeland Security and Humanitarian Assistance to Major
    Combat Operations.
    Getting Underway: Programs in Support of Building the Future Force
        A balanced force of about 313 ships and about 3,800 aircraft meets
    the criteria we have established for the future. Within this force,
    eleven aircraft carriers and their associated air wings are sufficient
    to ensure our ability to provide coverage in any foreseeable
    contingency and do so with meaningful, persistent combat power.
    Although there is risk here, we believe the risk is both moderate and
    manageable.
        There is risk in other areas as well. Despite the fact the total
    SSN numbers drop below 48 between 2020 and 2034, our fast attack
    submarines will provide the Intelligence Surveillance and
    Reconnaissance (ISR) capability we need to support indications and
    warning of any impending threat throughout their areas of operations
    and will be sufficient to sustain minimum required deployed presence
    needed for major combat operations.
        Surface combatant capability is robust, but does not provide
    extended Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD) capacity--that just
    isn't affordable within the top line we have today. Navy is, however,
    expanding our currently limited short- and medium-range ballistic
    missile defense capabilities through the fielding of the Aegis BMD and
    SM-3 missiles. A future sea-based terminal (SBT) BMD capability will be
    addressed initially through upgrades to existing missile inventories
    and eventually through Navy Open Architecture initiatives in Aegis
    ships and CG(X).
        Our expeditionary capability provides the Joint Forcible Entry
    capacity necessary to support the sea base as a lodgment point for
    Joint operations but represents an acceptable decrease in Marine
    Expeditionary Brigade lift capacity. A myriad of tactical, surveillance
    and reconnaissance, heavy lift, and support aircraft, as well as a
    variety of support ships, provide the Navy with sufficient capacity in
    each mission area.
        To win the ``long war'' against terror we need a Navy that can be
    many places simultaneously. Engagement with allies and friends is the
    only effective way to deter this kind of aggression. We must operate
    with, and show commitment to, our friends around the world in order to
    ensure their assistance in active pursuit of terrorist organizations.
    In developing our capabilities and ship-count, we matched the demand
    signal to ship types and ensured we were not ``over-building'' our Navy
    based on this demand signal. Additional global reach is provided, in
    part, by our flexible Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) platform which
    leverages modular capability against cost. The planned build of fifty-
    five FREEDOM Class LCS, augmented by the Navy Expeditionary Combat
    Command's riverine capabilities, will better serve our Combatant
    Commanders and complement the capability of our partners worldwide.
        Programs of particular interest include:
        CVN 77, CVN 21.--Navy plans to launch the aircraft carrier, USS
    GEORGE H.W. BUSH (CVN 77) in October 2006, and we expect it to enter
    the fleet in late 2008. Meanwhile, we continue to design the future
    aircraft carrier, CVN 21, which will serve as the replacement for USS
    ENTERPRISE and our NIMITZ Class aircraft carriers. CVN 21 balances
    significantly improved warfighting capability, quality of life
    improvements for our Sailors and reduced acquisition and life cycle
    costs. Highlights of these enhancements include: 25 percent increase in
    sortie generation rate, nearly three fold increase in electrical
    generating capacity, and increased operational availability. At the
    same time, CVN 21 will also achieve over $300 million reduction in
    procurement costs, $5 billion reduction in Life Cycle Costs, and up to
    1,000 billet reductions. These manpower reductions are expected in
    several key areas: Damage Control, Bridge/Navigation; Warfare System;
    Air Wing; Staffs; Supply chain Management; Weapons Handling; Pit Stop;
    and Automation.
        CVN 21 and the Carrier Strike Group will continue to provide
    forward presence, rapid response, endurance on station, and multi-
    mission capability to serve our nation's needs for generations to come.
        DD(X).--DD(X), a multi-mission surface combatant tailored for land
    attack and littoral dominance, will provide independent forward
    presence and deterrence, and operate as an integral part of Joint and
    combined expeditionary forces. DD(X) will capitalize on reduced
    signatures and enhanced survivability to maintain persistent presence
    in the littoral. DD(X) program provides the baseline for spiral
    development to support future surface ships as part of Navy's ``Family
    of Ships'' strategy.
        With its Advanced Gun System (AGS) and associated Long Range Land
    Attack Projectile (LRLAP), DD(X) will provide volume and precision
    fires in support of Joint forces ashore. A GPS guided, 155 mm round,
    LRLAP will provide all- weather fires capability out to 83nm. The DD(X)
    Dual Band Radar represents a significant increase in air defense
    capability in the cluttered littoral environment. Investment in Open
    Architecture and reduced manning will provide the Navy life cycle cost
    savings and technology that can be retrofit to legacy ships.
        The Open Architecture environment in the DD(X) Total Ships
    Computing Environment will allow Navy to rapidly and cost effectively
    upgrade ships through software changes while avoiding costly hardware
    changes. This in turn will allow us to keep ships viable against
    emerging threats and avoid the high cost of supporting numerous
    baselines, a problem that we are paying for in the AEGIS program today.
        CG(X).--While DD(X) is a multi-mission destroyer tailored for land
    attack and littoral dominance, CG(X) will be focused on sea-based
    solutions to Theater Ballistic and Cruise missile gaps. CG(X) will
    provide airspace dominance and protection to all Joint forces operating
    with the Sea Base and will reach IOC in 2019. CG(X) will bring to sea
    significant warfighting capabilities.
        LCS.--Navy will commission the first Littoral Combat Ship, USS
    FREEDOM (LCS 1) in fiscal year 2007. The FREEDOM Class will be a fast,
    agile and networked surface combatant with capabilities optimized to
    assure naval and Joint force access to contested littoral regions. LCS
    operates with focused-mission packages that deploy manned and unmanned
    vehicles to execute a variety of missions, including littoral anti-
    submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare and mine countermeasures.
    Innovations for the LCS include: Focused mission ship with
    interchangeable mission packages; reduced manning to reduce lifecycle
    cost; optimization for warfighting in the Littorals; inherent
    capabilities to increase utility in littorals beyond focused mission
    packages; extensive use of Unmanned Vehicles and off-board sensors for
    mission packages; Acquisition Strategy that provides two LCS variants
    designed to the same requirements; contracting for complete systems
    (less mission packages); and Seaframe and mission package acquisition
    strategies that provide for spiral design.
        LPD 17.--The lead ship of the class, USS SAN ANTONIO (LPD 17) was
    commissioned on January 14th, and will soon be joined by four other
    ships currently under construction. LPD 17 functionally replaces four
    classes of amphibious ships for embarking, transporting and landing
    elements of a Marine landing force in an assault by helicopters,
    landing craft, amphibious vehicles, and by a combination of these
    methods.
        LHA(R).--LHA(R) Flight 0 is a modified LHD 1 Class variant designed
    to accommodate aircraft in the future USMC Aviation Combat Element
    (ACE), including JSF/MV-22, and to provide adequate service life for
    future growth. LHA(R) will replace four aging LHA Class ships that
    reach their administrative extended service life between 2011-2019.
    This program maintains future power projection and the forward deployed
    combat capability of the Navy and Marine Corps. LHA(R) enables forward
    presence and power projection as an integral part of Joint, Inter-
    Service and Multinational Maritime Expeditionary Forces.
        Modernization.--The Navy must ensure we achieve full service life
    from our fleet, something we have not done well in the past.
    Modernization of our existing force is a critical component of our
    ability to build the Navy of the future. Our platforms must remain
    tactically relevant and structurally sound for the entire duration of
    their expected service life.
        Naval Aviation modernization efforts continue with the F/A-18A/B/C/
    D Hornet and the EA-6B Prowler as a bridge to a more capable air wing
    that will include the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the EA-18G Growler,
    and the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. Modernization also continues with the
    E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, the CH-53X, and the SH-60R/S.
        The surface force modernization program will help bridge the gap to
    DD(X) and CG(X) and mitigates the risk associated with transitioning
    from legacy combat systems to Open Architecture (OA) compliant
    commercial off the shelf (COTS) technologies. We expect modernization
    efforts on our AEGIS CGs and DDGs to enable these ships to realize an
    expected service life of 35 years. Historically, ships that were not
    modernized were decommissioned (on average) after 17-20 years of
    service due to obsolescence of sensors, C4I suites, and combat systems.
        Cruiser (Mod).--AEGIS Cruiser Modification improves war-fighting
    capability through enhanced self defense (CIWS Block 1B, Evolved Sea
    Sparrow Missile (ESSM)), expanded information sharing and collaborative
    engagement (Cooperative Engagement Capability--CEC), improved littoral
    ASW capability and significant land attack improvements (Tactical
    Tomahawk--TACTOM). A comprehensive Mission Life Extension (MLE) package
    includes the All Electric Modification, SmartShip, Hull Mechanical and
    Electrical system upgrades and a series of alterations designed to
    restore displacement and stability margins, correct hull and deck house
    cracking and improve quality of life and service onboard. This
    modernization will extend the service life of the AEGIS Cruisers to
    approximately 35 years.
        The SmartShip installation reduces enlisted crew manning on CGs by
    13 (297 vice 310). At its inception, the CG Mod Program was not
    established with a requirement for manning reductions; however, PEO
    SHIPS has commissioned a Total Ship Integration Team (TSIT) study in
    conjunction with DDG Mod efforts to determine additional areas for
    potential manning reductions in CG Mod. The TSIT works with the system
    program managers and NAVMAC to fully model CG Mod manning with respect
    to watchstanding, maintenance and fatigue analysis.
        Destroyer (Mod).--The DDG Modernization Program is likewise
    designed to reduce manning and total ownership costs while increasing
    warfighting capability. DDG modernization supports the transition to
    DD(X) and CG(X), and mitigates the risk associated with the transition
    from legacy combat systems to Open Architecture (OA) compliant,
    Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) technologies. The intent is to provide
    a coherent strategy to keep each ship relevant and affordable through
    their entire 35-year hull life.
        VIRGINIA Class Fast Attack Nuclear Submarine (SSN).--Navy needs to
    maintain an SSN force structure sufficient to meet current operational
    requirements, the Global War on Terror, and any potential future threat
    from near peer competitors. The first 10 VIRGINIA Class (SSN 774)
    submarines are already under contract. Navy is pursuing a number of
    cost reduction initiatives intended to lower SSN 774 acquisition costs
    to $2 billion (in fiscal year 2005 dollars) at a stable build rate of
    two-per-year, currently planned for fiscal year 2012.
        The Navy intends to pursue design modifications to the VIRGINIA
    Class that will lower acquisition cost, while sustaining or improving
    warfighting capability. The Navy and our submarine shipbuilders are
    conducting a detailed study of design options that will dovetail with
    ongoing production and contracting initiatives and sustain the critical
    skills necessary for nuclear submarine design. A detailed report
    meeting the requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act
    statute and reflecting the outcome of the study will be available later
    this Spring.
        F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).--The JSF is an affordable multi-
    mission strike fighter aircraft that incorporates matured and
    demonstrated 21st Century technology to meet the war fighting needs of
    the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and eight other countries. The JSF
    program pillars are range, lethality, survivability, supportability,
    and affordability. The United States, United Kingdom, Italy,
    Netherlands, Denmark, Turkey, Norway, Australia, and Canada comprise
    the JSF cooperative partnership. There are three JSF variants:
    Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL), Carrier Variant (CV), and
    Short Take Off and Landing (STOVL). Department of Navy procurement is
    expected to be 680 aircraft.
        The JSF aircraft carrier (CV) variant is projected to exceed its
    required 600NM combat radius, and the STOVL variant is projected to
    exceed its required 450NM combat radius.
        F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.--The Super Hornet is the Navy's next
    generation strike-fighter. The F/A-18E/F replaces the F-14, older model
    F/A-18, and S-3 carrier-based tankers. F/A-18E/F is five times more
    survivable than the F/A-18C. The Super Hornet provides a 40 percent
    increase in combat radius, a 50 percent increase in endurance, 25
    percent greater weapons payload, and three times more ordinance bring-
    back than the F/A-18C. The F/A-18E/F will have the Active
    Electronically Scanned Array Radar System (AESA), Integrated Defensive
    Electronic Countermeasures System (IDECM), Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing
    System (JHMCS), Advanced Targeting FLIR (ATFLIR), Shared Reconnaissance
    Pod (SHARP), Multi-Function Information Distribution System (MIDS), and
    Advanced Crew Station (ACS). 246 Super Hornets have been delivered of a
    total procurement of 460.
        EA-18G Growler.--The EA-18G is a two-seat carrier-based replacement
    aircraft for the EA-6B Prowler electronic attack aircraft. The Growler
    is scheduled for initial operational capability (IOC) in 2009. The
    Growler shares a common airframe with the F/A-18F Super Hornet. A total
    inventory of 90 aircraft is planned for service in 11 squadrons. EA-18G
    upgrades include the destruction of enemy air defenses with Joint
    weapons, advanced RF receiver and jamming modes, integrated peer-to-
    peer networking, integration with stand-in assets, and coordinated off-
    board Electronic Support (ES).
        F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet.--The F/A-18 Hornet is Naval Aviation's
    primary strike-fighter. The Hornet is the workhorse of Navy/Marine
    Corps tactical aircraft and is also flown by the armed forces of seven
    allied and friendly countries. Its reliability and precision weapons-
    delivery capability highlight the Hornet's success. Improvements to the
    Hornet A/B/C/D variants provide state-of-the-art war fighting
    enhancements in precision strike, anti-air and C4I capabilities. The
    more than 680 Navy and Marine Corps Hornets will continue to comprise
    half of the carrier strike force until 2013, and the A/B/C/D Hornet
    variants are scheduled to remain in the Naval Aviation inventory
    through 2022.
        E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.--The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE) program
    will modernize the current fleet of aircraft carrier based airborne
    early warning E-2C aircraft. AHE will have a new radar and other
    aircraft system components that will improve nearly every facet of
    tactical air operations. The modernized weapons system will be designed
    to maintain open ocean capability while adding transformational
    littoral surveillance and Theater Air and Missile Defense capabilities
    against emerging air threats in the high clutter, electro-magnetic
    interference and jamming environment. The AHE will be one of the four
    pillars contributing to Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air. The
    AHE program plans to build 75 new aircraft. The program is on track to
    meet the first flight milestone in fiscal year 2007.
        P-8A Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA).--The P-8A is the Navy's
    next generation MMA, replacing the P-3C. The P-8A missions will include
    broad area maritime and littoral surveillance, anti-submarine warfare,
    anti-surface warfare and ISR. The P-8A fulfills the Combatant
    Commander's requirements for major combat operations, forward presence
    and homeland defense. It will replace the P-3C on a less than one-for-
    one basis, and trades 4,500 military billets for 900 contractor
    billets. IOC for the P-8A is fiscal year 2013.
        MV-22B Osprey.--The MV-22 Osprey is the Navy and Marine Corps'
    next-generation medium-lift assault support aircraft. It will replace
    the CH-46E and CH-53D. The Osprey will significantly improve the
    operational reach and capability of deployed forces: The MV-22 is twice
    as fast, has triple the payload, and six times the range of the
    airframes it will replace. The Navy and Marine Corps MV-22 requirement
    is 408 Osprey aircraft.
        MH-60R/S Multi-Mission Helicopter.--The MH-60R and MH-60S are the
    Navy's multi-role helicopters that incorporate advanced sensors and
    weapons systems to perform a multitude of missions that were previously
    performed by six different types of aircraft. The MH-60R Multi-Mission
    Helicopter will replace the SH-60B and SH-60F Seahawk helicopters
    entirely, and perform the anti-ship role of the fixed-wing S-3 Viking,
    which is currently being phased out of service. The MH-60R will perform
    anti-submarine, undersea, and surface warfare missions.
        The MH-60S is the Navy's primary Combat Support Helicopter designed
    to support the Carrier Strike Group and Expeditionary Strike Group in
    combat logistics, vertical replenishment, anti-surface warfare,
    airborne mine countermeasures, combat search and rescue, and naval
    special warfare mission areas.
        CH-53X.--The Ch-53X is the follow on to the Marine Corps CH-53E
    Heavy Lift Helicopter and will have double the lift capacity of the CH-
    53E. The CH-53X will incorporate more powerful engines, an expanded
    gross weight airframe, composite rotor blades, an updated cockpit and
    cargo handling systems and will be more survivable. The CH-53X will
    serve the Navy's sea base and is an integral part of the Marine Corps
    2015 Ship-to-Objective Maneuver doctrine. IOC is planned for 2015.
        Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aircraft System
    (UAS).--BAMS UAS is an unmanned aircraft capable of carrying various
    mission payloads. BAMS UAS will incorporate radar, electro-optical,
    infrared, and electronic surveillance measures capabilities that will
    allow BAMS UAS to detect, classify, and identify targets using either
    active or passive methods. The BAMS UAS is also a key node in the
    Navy's FORCEnet C4I architecture. It will be capable of providing
    persistent worldwide maritime ISR capability, supporting maritime
    domain awareness, and providing information that enables commanders to
    achieve decision superiority.
        Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration (GMHD).--GHMD provides a high
    altitude, high endurance UAV capability seven years before the IOC of
    the BAMS UAS. Two Global Hawk UAVs are being procured on an Air Force
    production and modified with a radar and limited capability ESM suite
    that support ship detection. GHMD will be used to support testing of
    persistent maritime ISR technologies, and to help develop Concepts of
    Operation (CONOPS) and tactics, training, and procedures (TTP) for
    maritime UAVs.
        Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (JUCAS).--JUCAS is a Boeing
    industries project that will provide the Navy with a carrier-based UCAV
    capable of performing strike, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD),
    and ISR missions in high threat environments against future air defense
    systems. JUCAS capabilities will help minimize the risk of loss or
    capture of friendly forces. JUCAS is anticipated to fulfill ISR
    missions by 2018, with follow-on strike and SEAD mission capabilities
    achieved by 2024. The Navy's primary initial objective is to complete
    aircraft carrier flight demonstration of a tailless UAV. Three land-
    based vehicles are schedule for first flight in fiscal year 2007 and
    will demonstrate in-flight refueling capabilities and limited weapons
    and sensor integration. Two carrier suitable vehicles are scheduled for
    their first flights in fiscal year 2008. An aircraft carrier
    demonstration is scheduled for fiscal year 2011.
        MQ-8B Fire Scout Vertical Takeoff UAV (VTUAV).--The Navy VTUAV is
    designed to operate from all aircraft-capable ships. VTUAV will carry
    modular mission payloads and use the Tactical Control System (TCS) and
    Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL). VTUAV will provide day/night real
    time ISR and targeting, as well as C4I and battlefield management
    capabilities to support the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) core mission
    areas of ASW, Mine Warfare (MIW), and anti-surface warfare (ASUW). Fire
    Scout is currently in Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD).
        Tactical Control System (TCS).--The Tactical Control System (TCS)
    provides a common interface for future tactical and medium altitude
    unmanned aerial sensors (UAS). TCS will enable different UAS to use a
    common system for mission planning, command and control, and C4I. TCS
    software will provide a full range of scaleable UAS capabilities, from
    passive receipt of air vehicle and payload data to full air vehicle and
    payload command and control from ground control stations both ashore
    and afloat. TCS gives the Littoral Combat Ship a UAV capability when
    fielded in conjunction with the Fire Scout VTUAV system. TCS will also
    be evaluated for use in future programs such as BAMS UAS, MMA, and
    DD(X).
        Pioneer Tactical Unmanned Aerial Sensor (UAS).--The Pioneer UAS
    System is a transportable ISR platform capable of providing tactical
    commanders with day and night, battlefield, and maritime ISR in support
    of Marine expeditionary warfare and maritime control operations.
    Currently eight air vehicles are deployed with Marine forces and have
    flown over 12,000 flight hours in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.
    The Navy operates two air vehicles as test platforms for equipment and
    system upgrades, which will allow Pioneer sustainment until a follow-on
    system is fielded. The current USMC UAS plan calls for sustainment of
    the Pioneer UAS through at least fiscal year 2015, pending the fielding
    of a replacement system.

                        DEVELOPING 21ST CENTURY LEADERS

    Taking a Fix
        The men and women of the United States Navy--active, reserve and
    civilian--are the lifeblood and heart of the Service. And today they
    are the best, most talented and capable team of professionals the
    nation has ever assembled. The Navy currently has an active force of
    357,474, of which 39,775 are now deployed. Our reserve community
    consists of 74,632 sailors, 4,281 of whom are now activated.

                                    Figure 3

        The Navy's ``Strategy for Our People'' provides overarching
    guidance for achieving a capabilities-based and competency-focused
    Total Navy workforce (active, reserve, civilian) in synch with Joint
    and Service-specific mission requirements. Capitalizing on the success
    of manpower and personnel reforms over the last several years, we will
    shape a more agile and operationally capable Navy. While we address our
    skill imbalances we will also focus and improve our efforts in the
    talent marketplace to achieve a more diverse workforce (see Figure 3).
    We will link and leverage SEA WARRIOR and National Security Personnel
    System (NSPS) processes to achieve an agile and robust Total Navy
    personnel architecture that rewards performance and can quickly respond
    to emerging competency demand signals.
        In fiscal year 2005 the Navy met 100 percent of its active enlisted
    accession goal, with 95 percent high school graduates and 70 percent in
    test score category I-IIIA. For reserve enlisted recruiting, Navy met
    85 percent of fiscal year 2005 accession goals, with shortfalls in
    ratings with insufficient numbers of Navy veterans (e.g. Seabees,
    Master at Arms). In officer programs, 84 percent of active component
    goals and 90 percent of reserve goals were attained in fiscal year
    2005. Shortfalls were mostly in Medical programs.
        Retaining the best and brightest Sailors has always been a Navy
    core objective and essential for our success. Navy retains the right
    people by offering rewarding opportunities for professional growth,
    development, and leadership directly tied to mission readiness. Navy
    has remained successful in filling enlisted operational billets around
    the world to sustain Fleet readiness objectives.
        Key to these successes has been Navy's aggressive program to
    enhance quality of service for our Total Navy (the combination of
    quality of work and quality of life). We continue to monitor the
    impacts of an improving economy and the War on Terror to ensure
    programs support Sailors and their families and contribute to making
    the Navy their career of choice. We remain focused on providing
    adequate pay, health care, housing, proper work environments, and
    career-long learning for our Sailors.
        But retention and the drive to attract and hold onto the best
    people, underscores the need to seek efficiencies in the force--
    efficiencies that ultimately will translate into reduced end strength.
    By the end of fiscal year 2006, your Navy will have reduced its active
    end strength by almost 30,000 (7.7 percent of the active component)
    since 2003. Further reductions will result from efficiencies yet to be
    realized through technological advances that eliminate outdated, labor-
    intensive jobs. As potential reductions in manpower are identified, the
    Navy will execute these reductions in a planned, controlled, and
    responsible manner that is consistent with the security interests of
    the country.
        Prior to considering Sailors for separation (and selective
    application of voluntary separation incentives), we employ a
    progressive approach to evaluate options for retaining Sailors by
    shifting personnel from overmanned to undermanned skills through
    retraining and conversion. This is accomplished through a variety of
    means, including the Perform to Serve, Lateral Conversion Bonus,
    transfer to fill valid reserve component requirements, or through
    inter-service transfer (e.g. Army's Blue-to-Green initiative).
        After exhausting all logical retention options, consideration is
    given to releasing Sailors whose service/skills are no longer required.
    Under no circumstances should we retain personnel in over-manned skills
    if it is not feasible and cost-effective to move them into undermanned
    skills. To do so would be poor stewardship of taxpayer dollars and
    would force Navy to endure gaps in undermanned skills to remain within
    authorized aggregate strength levels, thereby adversely impacting
    personnel readiness.
        In parallel with the Strategy for Our People, we are pursuing an
    Active-Reserve Integration (ARI) program that will support a more
    operational and flexible unit structure. The Navy Reserve is evolving
    into a flexible, adaptive, and responsive operational force needed to
    fight the asymmetric, non-traditional threats of our future. Active-
    Reserve Integration has already enabled a Reserve Force that is ready,
    relevant, and fully integrated into our nation's defense both overseas
    and in the homeland. We recognize and value the diverse skills our
    Reservists possess, accrued in both military service and civilian life.
        Our vision for the future is to capture the skills of our
    outstanding citizen Sailors for life. In the ``Sailor for Life'' model,
    Reservists would seamlessly transition between reserve and active
    components, answering the nation's call to arms when needed. The
    Congress' continued support of financial incentives and bonuses will
    ensure the retention of these highly skilled Sailors.
        Navy Reserve Sailors have performed a pivotal role in the Global
    War on Terror. Mobilized Sailors provide a portion of this support--
    4,281 Sailors are currently serving on involuntary mobilizations in
    such areas as Customs Inspection, Cargo Handlers, Navy Coastal Warfare,
    Naval Construction Battalions, Medical and Corpsmen, Helicopter Special
    Operations Forces Support and numerous others. But mobilization alone
    does not reflect the total contribution of the Navy's Reserve. On any
    given day, an additional 15,000 Reservists are providing operational
    support to the Fleet around the globe. During the past year, Reserve
    Sailors have provided over 15,000 man-years of support to the Fleet.
    This support is the equivalent of 18 Naval Construction Battalions or
    two Carrier Battle Groups.
        Finally, we must recognize another aspect of readiness that is
    equally as important as preparing and maintaining our ships and
    training and equipping our Sailors. ``Family readiness'' describes the
    support needed to ensure our Sailors and their families are as well
    prepared for operations as our ships and airframes. The Navy is working
    hard to implement the right support mechanisms, Ombudsman training,
    Family Advocacy programs, Spouse Education and Employment programs,
    mentorship, and family counseling. We can do little without the support
    of our families, and it is up to us to ensure they are well taken care
    of and ready and eager to support.
    Plotting the Course: Where we're heading in Developing 21st Century
            Leaders
        To better serve the men and women who are the United States Navy,
    and in turn, enable them to be as effective as possible in a
    challenging new global era, we must: improve diversity; encourage and
    reward continuing education and training that stresses critical
    thinking; institutionalize executive development; assign our best and
    brightest to critical Joint, interagency, and foreign exchange tours;
    increase access to foreign language and cultural awareness training;
    respond rapidly to significant changes in leading indicators for
    recruiting and retention; and, better recognize the important role
    families play in our readiness and quality of life. It is this
    commitment to our own that will best demonstrate our resolve and
    determination in a new era.
        New opportunities and security challenges require new skill sets.
    Brainpower is as important as firepower. Our Sailors must be empowered
    to operate and fight in a vast array of environments that range from
    failing states and ungoverned spaces to the most technologically
    advanced nations, virtual worlds and cyberspace. They will form the
    foundation of an expeditionary force when and where required. They will
    be expected to understand and foster cooperation in cultures far
    different from our own. They will be ambassadors, educators, health
    care providers, mentors, and friends to a diverse cross-section of the
    global community. They must be equipped with the tools and skills to
    meet these challenges, to excel as professionals, and to develop as
    individuals.
        We are increasingly leveraging technology to improve our
    warfighting advantage and to broaden the skill sets required to meet
    the multi-cultural, asymmetric challenges of this century. Advances in
    ships and system design allow us to shed some obsolete, labor-intensive
    functions while improving productivity and war fighting readiness.
    Economies are gained by eliminating redundant and non-essential skill
    sets. The optimal end-strength for our active and reserve components
    must reflect the economies derived from transforming the force to meet
    the challenges we face in this new century.
        The concept of Total Navy encompasses those serving the Department
    of the Navy in uniform and in a civilian capacity, active and reserve
    component alike. NSPS is a new personnel system that will create civil
    service rules for the 750,000 civilian workers in the Department of
    Defense. It strengthens our ability to accomplish the mission in an
    ever-changing national security environment. NSPS accelerates
    Department of Defense efforts to create a Total Force (military
    personnel, civilian personnel, Reserve, Guard, and contractors),
    operating as one cohesive unit, with each performing the work most
    suitable to their skills. The Navy's ``Strategy for our People'' needs
    a manpower and personnel system that appropriately recognizes and
    rewards our civilian employees' performance and the contributions they
    make to the Department of Defense mission. NSPS gives us better tools
    to attract and retain good employees.
        Throughout Total Navy, diversity is a fundamental building block
    upon which the Strategy for our People stands. The Navy's diversity
    objectives are aimed at improving our access to the full range of the
    nation's talent and improving our ability to harvest and represent the
    full strength of the nation. The ``Strategy for Our People'' views
    Total Navy as a team, whose people are treated with dignity and
    respect, are encouraged to lead, and feel empowered to reach their full
    potential. Total Navy diversity represents all the different
    characteristics and attributes of individual Sailors and civilians,
    which enhance our mission readiness.
        Training, education, mentoring, and leadership programs are aimed
    at increasing awareness of diversity and creating a culture that
    promotes growth and development opportunities for every member of the
    Navy. These programs are currently funded through Training and
    Education commands. Specific diversity-focused training for leadership
    is a newly funded initiative that seeks to create awareness and
    communication skill competencies for all levels of leadership and embed
    diversity values into the force.
        The Navy is a full partner and supporter of the Department's
    Training Transformation Program. We are better preparing units and
    staffs for joint operations through the Joint National Training
    Capability, and individuals for joint assignment through the Joint
    Knowledge Development and Distribution Capability.
        The cornerstone of Navy's ``Strategy for Our People'' is the SEA
    WARRIOR program. SEA WARRIOR comprises the Navy's training, education,
    and career-management systems that provide for the growth and
    development of our people. It provides them with greater individual
    career management and enables them to take a more active role in
    furthering their careers through education and training opportunities.
    SEA WARRIOR will include an automated, web-enabled system and processes
    which will increase overall mission effectiveness by efficiently
    developing and delivering an optimally matched, trained, educated, and
    motivated workforce.
    Getting Underway: Programs and Practices in Support of Developing 21st
            Century Leaders
        The Navy's ``Strategy for our People'' provides the guidance and
    tools to assess, train, distribute, and develop our manpower to become
    a mission-focused force that truly meets the warfighting requirements
    of the Navy. At the same time, we must improve the work-life balance
    and quality of service so our Sailors and civilians will enjoy
    meaningful job content, realize their important contributions, and have
    expanded opportunity for professional and personal growth. We will
    deliver all the above, while tackling head-on the pernicious challenges
    of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and substance abuse, and offering
    an environment that values and rewards diversity.
    Programs and practices of particular interest include:
        Diversity.--The Navy diversity strategy is aimed at creating and
    maintaining our Navy as a team, whose people are treated with dignity
    and respect, are encouraged to lead and feel empowered to reach their
    full potential. Specific initiatives are aligned under the four focus
    areas of recruiting, growth and development, organizational alignment,
    and communications. Navy has increased advertising and marketing funds
    specifically targeted at diversity recruiting for the past five years.
    We have also chartered outreach programs aimed at minority and female
    engineering and technical organizations.
        Transforming training, education, mentoring, and leadership
    programs are aimed at increasing awareness of diversity and creating a
    culture that provides growth and development opportunities for every
    member of the U.S. Navy. The Navy is currently developing a Concept of
    Operations (CONOPS) for an aggressive program to increase the diversity
    of our Service.
        Some Examples of progress to date include:
      --Recruiting.--Coordination of national public awareness and
            recruiting events. Increased diversity event sponsorship. More
            visibility into ROTC application, recruiting, and board
            processes.
      --Developing.--Diversity awareness and communication training has
            been built into all levels of leadership development courses;
            Navy-wide Equal Opportunity Advisor (EOA)/Diversity symposium
            will become an annual event.
      --Alignment/Oversight.--Diversity Senior Advisory Group and Fleet
            Diversity Councils will coordinate best practices with various
            Navy Enterprises.
        Enlisted Retention (Selective Reenlistment Bonus).--Selective
    Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) continues to be our most effective retention
    and force-shaping tool, enabling us to retain the right number of high
    quality Sailors with the right skills and experience. More importantly,
    it affords Navy the ability to compete in a domestic labor market that
    increasingly demands more skilled, technically proficient, and
    adaptable personnel.
        The Navy is continuing to transform our workforce by recruiting
    fewer generalists and becoming a predominantly technical and more
    experienced force. To retain the critical skills we need, our SRB
    strategy has shifted from targeting general skill sets with less than
    ten years of service, to focusing on the specialized skills of Sailors
    across the career continuum (up through 14 years of service). Navy has
    applied increasing analytical rigor in predicting and monitoring
    reenlistment requirements. By monitoring actual reenlistment behavior
    down to the individual skill level, Navy personnel managers review
    clear and unambiguous data to ensure precious SRB dollars are applied
    only when and where needed, based on requirements and outcome.
        We are grateful to Congress for increasing the SRB cap from $60,000
    to $90,000 and will ensure the higher award cap is judiciously applied.
    A portion of this increased SRB may be used to reverse declining
    retention among our most skilled personnel in the Nuclear Propulsion
    specialties. Fiscal year 2005 culminated in achieving only half of our
    zone B nuclear rating reenlistment goal and left several nuclear
    specialties at less than 90 percent of required manning. Applying an
    increased SRB level to retain these highly trained, highly skilled, and
    highly sought after personnel makes sense, both financially and from a
    force readiness perspective. The Navy saves over $100,000 in training
    costs and 10 to 14 years of irreplaceable nuclear propulsion plant
    experience for each individual SRB enables us to reenlist. The
    additional flexibility provided by the SRB cap increase will allow Navy
    to incentivize experienced nuclear-trained personnel and to address
    other skill sets as retention trends emerge.
        Having a flexible and adequately resourced SRB program will help us
    continue to sustain high readiness with a top quality work force.
        Officer Retention.--Creating an environment conducive to
    professional growth that provides an attractive quality of service,
    including education, adequate pay, health care, and housing, will aid
    retention efforts. However, continued focus on increasing unrestricted
    line (URL) officer retention across all warfighting disciplines is
    required. Officer retention shows positive trends despite shortfalls in
    the ranks of Lieutenant Commander to Captain in the surface and
    submarine unrestricted line communities.
        National Security Personnel System (NSPS).--NSPS strengthens our
    ability to accomplish the mission in an ever-changing national security
    environment. NSPS accelerates the Department's efforts to create a
    Total Force (military personnel, civilian personnel, Reserve, Guard and
    contractors), operating as one cohesive unit, with each performing the
    work most suitable to their skills.
        Civilian Career Management.--The Navy supports efforts to develop a
    career management system for civilian employees. Our approach includes
    documenting and validating competencies for use in career planning and
    development. The validated competencies will be made available to the
    workforce as career roadmaps through both 5 Vector Models (Navy) and
    the Civilian Workforce Development Application (CWDA) (USMC). Also in
    process is the development of guidance directed toward supervisors and
    employees indicating how to use competency data to assist with the
    performance management process including career planning and
    development.
        Health Care.--A vital part of Navy and family readiness hinges on
    our commitment to provide top quality health care for our active and
    retired personnel and their dependants. Navy Medicine transformation
    initiatives link authority and accountability to facilitate
    performance-based management that maximizes efficiencies while
    maintaining quality. Increases in the cost of providing health services
    in Navy Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs), for example, have been
    kept below the healthcare rate of inflation and that trend is expected
    to hold true in the out-years. As a priority, the Navy is also
    carefully monitoring the support offered to service members who were
    injured during OEF/OIF service, ensuring a seamless transition to the
    services available through the Veteran's Administration (VA).
        The Department of Defense and Congress have established TRICARE as
    the ``gold standard'' health care benefit. Health care costs have
    increased dramatically in recent years and are expected to grow at
    rates that exceed standard indices of inflation \1\. Far from being
    immune to these costs, the DOD must include this reality in the
    budgetary calculus of providing for the nation's security. DOD TRICARE
    costs have more than doubled in five years from $19 billion in fiscal
    year 2001 to $38 billion in fiscal year 2006, and analysts project
    these costs could reach $64 billion by 2015--more than 12 percent of
    DOD's anticipated budget (versus 8 percent today). On the other hand,
    TRICARE Premiums have not changed with inflation since the program
    began in 1995, so that total beneficiary cost shares have declined
    substantially--27 percent of total benefit cost in 1995 while 12
    percent in 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Total national health expenditures increased by 7.7 percent in
    2003 (over 2002), four times the rate of inflation in 2003. Smith, C.C.
    Cowan, A Sensenig and A. Catlin, ``Health Spending: Growth Slows in
    2003,'' Health Affairs 24:1 (2005): 185-194.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When TRICARE for Life was developed for the 2001 National Defense
    Authorization Act, we could not have anticipated the growing number of
    retirees and their dependents, not yet Medicare eligible, who have
    chosen or have been driven to switch from private/commercial health
    care plans to TRICARE in order to better cope with rising health care
    costs. Indeed, the Services are increasingly picking up the tab for
    businesses, local and state governments unwilling or unable to provide
    adequate health care benefits to their retired Veteran employees.
        The Navy will continue to meet our security commitments to the
    American people while fully supporting the health care needs of our
    active and reserve members and their families and keeping the faith
    with those who stood the watch before us. This can be accomplished by
    working cooperatively with Congress to implement carefully crafted
    initiatives and administrative actions that will restore appropriate
    cost sharing relationships between beneficiaries and the Department of
    Defense.
        Family Advocacy.--Navy Family Advocacy Program (FAP) has led the
    way among the Services and the Department of Defense in domestic abuse
    policy and process by: providing victim advocacy at some Navy
    installations since the mid-1990s, and by (since 1997) responding to
    allegations of domestic abuse between unmarried intimate partners,
    providing a formal diversion process for low-risk cases, and providing
    limited discretionary reporting when a victim of domestic abuse seeks
    counseling voluntarily. Navy commands remain active partners in
    stopping family violence and responding to domestic abuse.
        Sexual Assault.--Navy now provides 24/7 response capability for
    sexual assaults on the installation and during deployment by activating
    watchbills for victim advocates and notifying the installation Sexual
    Assault Response Coordinators (SARC). Victims of restricted cases of
    sexual assault are offered advocacy, medical and counseling services
    without triggering an investigation through law enforcement or the
    command.
        Active-Reserve Integration.--Active Reserve Integration (ARI)
    aligns Reserve Component (RC) and Active Component (AC) personnel,
    training, equipment, and policy to provide a more effective and
    efficient Total Navy capable of meeting dynamic National Defense
    requirements.
        The Navy is currently aligning RC and AC units to better meet
    Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM requirements and
    the Navy's vision for our future force structure: RC Helicopter-Combat
    Support (HCS) missions will be integrated into AC Helicopter missions;
    RC and AC Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Units are being integrated
    and two RC Navy Coastal Warfare Units (NCW) are being converted to the
    AC. The Navy is also studying the role of the RC in future Navy mission
    areas of Riverine Warfare and Civil Affairs. In support of Operations
    Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, AC and RC Sailors are working
    together to fill billets in Civil Affairs, Detainee Operations,
    Intelligence, and Reconstruction Team efforts.
        The Navy Reserve has evolved from a strategic force of the Cold War
    to the flexible, adaptive and responsive operational force required to
    fight the asymmetric, irregular wars of the future. Change of this
    magnitude is not easy and challenges the senior leadership of both the
    AC and the RC. Support of the Congress is critical as we implement
    initiatives that will enable the effective and efficient use of both
    manpower and equipment, providing resources needed to recapitalize the
    Navy of the future. The total number of Navy Reservists, both Selected
    Reserves (SELRES) and Full Time Support (FTS), will be 73,100 at the
    end of fiscal year 2006.
        SEA WARRIOR.--SEA WARRIOR comprises the training, education, and
    career-management systems that provide for the growth and development
    of our people and enhance their contribution to our Joint warfighting
    ability. SEA WARRIOR leverages technology to provide Sailors the choice
    and opportunity for professional development and personal growth
    through Navy Knowledge Online (NKO), the Job Career Management System
    (JCMS), and the maturing of the 5 Vector Model--5VM (professional
    development, personal development, leadership, performance,
    certification and qualification). SEA WARRIOR will also provide
    commanders with a better manpower fit, matching the Sailor with exactly
    the right skills and training to the billet.
        Task Force Navy Family.--Task Force Navy Family (TFNF) was
    established to help our people who were affected by hurricanes Katrina,
    Rita, or Wilma. In all, the lives of more than 88,000 Navy personnel,
    retirees, and immediate family members were severely disrupted. TFNF
    leveraged existing agencies and local Community Support Centers to
    ensure that each Navy Family was contacted personally and, if desired,
    assigned an individual ``Family Case Manager.'' TFNF has resolved
    15,300 unique issues (76 percent of those reported). Housing and
    financial problems were, and remain, the most difficult to resolve,
    with over 1,000 severe issues yet to be resolved.
        TFNF has now completed its original task and has transitioned
    outstanding issues to Commander, Naval Installations Command and others
    for final resolution. In the process of serving our Navy family, TFNF
    has helped develop tools and structures that can be rapidly deployed in
    the event of future catastrophic events and render aid more efficiently
    and quickly.
        Key lessons learned by TFNF focused on communications, information
    sharing, and taking care of those affected by the devastation. These
    lessons learned, including the need for a more effective method of
    accounting for the whereabouts of ashore personnel and their families
    during crises, have been tasked to the appropriate organizations within
    the Navy for follow up and development of action plans.
        Foreign Area Officer Program.--Recognizing the need to build
    partner capacity, the QDR calls for the Navy to reinvigorate the
    Foreign Area Officer program. Navy has begun establishing a separate
    Restricted Line community of 300-400 officers that will compete
    discretely for statutory promotion through Flag rank. Navy's Foreign
    Area Officers (FAOs) will form a professional cadre with regional
    expertise and language skills who will provide support to Fleet,
    Component Commander, Combatant Commander and Joint Staffs. Their
    immediate mission will be to rapidly improve the Navy's ability to
    conduct Theater Security Cooperation (TSC), improve partner capacity in
    GWOT, and generate Maritime Domain Awareness while improving Navy's
    readiness and effectiveness in the conduct of conventional campaigns
    against increasingly sophisticated regional adversaries. The first FAO
    selection board was held December 14-15, 2005. 42 personnel were
    selected for lateral transfer and four of these officers already meet
    regional/cultural expertise and language skill requirements. They will
    be detailed to existing FAO billets in fiscal year 2006.
        Joint Professional Military Education (JPME).--As ongoing
    operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terror (GWOT)
    vividly illustrate, Navy must continue to adapt to growing Joint
    warfighting and interagency planning demands. Meeting such requirements
    will prepare our nation to defeat extremist groups and state
    adversaries who will challenge us in ways far different than in the
    past. We continue to develop a continuum of professional education and
    training to enhance the ability of Navy leaders to provide unique and
    complementary warfighting skills. Leaders who demonstrate the highest
    potential for service will be rewarded with in-residence Joint
    Professional Military Education (JPME), to prepare them to excel in
    naval, Joint, multi-national and interagency billets around the world.
    Non-resident courses are often facilitated through Advanced Distributed
    Learning. Navy personnel are also enrolled in Joint Knowledge
    Development and Distribution Capability courses to better prepare them
    for joint assignments.
        Navy Education.--Education is a key enabler in developing the
    competencies, professional knowledge and critical thinking skills to
    deliver adaptable, innovative combat-ready naval forces. The Navy will
    develop a continuum of capabilities-based and competency-focused life-
    long learning to keep naval forces on the cutting edge for mission
    accomplishment as well as to provide for the professional and personal
    growth of our people. Navy education must be tied to requirements and
    capabilities. Central to our efforts are the Naval Reserve Officers
    Training Corps (NROTC), the Naval Academy, Naval Postgraduate School,
    and the Naval War College.
        The Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps (NROTC) Program comprises
    59 NROTC units at 71 host institutions of higher learning across the
    nation. In addition, Departments of Naval Science are located at the
    United States Merchant Marine Academy and 6 selected state maritime
    institutions, two of which also host NROTC units. NROTC is the key
    source of nuclear power candidates, nurses and increased officer corps
    diversity. NROTC is designed to educate and train qualified young men
    and women for service as commissioned officers in the Navy or Marine
    Corps. NROTC prepares mature young men and women morally, mentally, and
    physically for leadership and management positions in an increasingly
    technical military. In addition, participation in the naval science
    program instills in students the highest ideals of duty, honor and
    loyalty.
        The Naval Academy gives young men and women the up-to-date academic
    and professional training needed to be effective naval and marine
    officers in their assignments after graduation. Renowned for producing
    officers with solid technical and analytical foundations, the Naval
    Academy is expanding its capabilities in strategic languages and
    regional studies.
        The Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) is our cornerstone of graduate
    education providing relevant, defense-focused degree and non-degree
    programs in residence and at a distance. We are expanding resident
    opportunities at NPS where the distinctly Joint and international
    environment contributes to the resident academic experience by
    mirroring the nature of today's operating forces. Included in this
    expansion is the support of regional expertise development within our
    Foreign Area Officer program. We are also increasing access to NPS
    graduate education through a variety of non-resident, distance learning
    opportunities.
        NPS may be one of our best tools to ensure the alignment of
    advanced operational concepts and technologies among the Department of
    Defense, Homeland Security, Inter-agency, and international military
    partnerships. NPS provides specialized programs that support U.S.
    national security priorities and the Combatant Commanders, including
    counter-terrorism, homeland security, and security cooperation. Masters
    Degree programs and seminars have been developed on Homeland Defense
    and Security, as well as Counter-drug Strategy and Policy, for the
    Department of Homeland Security. NPS teaches a classified graduate
    education program for the National Security Agency, is a University of
    choice for the National Reconnaissance Office, and NASA sponsors the
    annual Michael J. Smith NASA Chair at NPS with focused areas of space
    research, education and training for future astronaut candidates.
    Additionally, NPS receives sizeable annual funding from the National
    Science Foundation for basic research in oceanography, meteorology,
    information sciences, engineering, and technology development, often
    partnering with other universities on interdisciplinary research
    projects.
        The Naval War College is the centerpiece of Navy Professional
    Military Education and maritime-focused Joint Professional Military
    Education that develop strategically minded critical thinkers and
    leaders who are skilled in naval and Joint warfare. The Naval War
    College is restructuring its programs to improve comprehensive
    development of operational warfighting competencies, and key cross-
    functional and special competencies, including regional studies. We are
    increasing both War College resident and distance learning
    opportunities. Completion of non-resident courses and programs is
    facilitated through Advanced Distributed Learning.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Navy cannot meet the threats of tomorrow by simply maintaining
    today's readiness and capabilities. Our adversaries will not rest, our
    global neighbors will not wait. Neither will we. Building upon Sea
    Power 21, we must continue to transform and recapitalize for the future
    without jeopardizing our current readiness and the strides we have
    made--and continue to make--in personnel and manpower management. With
    our partners in industry, the acquisition community, OSD, and the
    interagency, and with the continuing support of the Congress, the Navy
    will build a force that is properly sized, balanced--and priced for
    tomorrow.
        We will build for our nation and its citizens the right Navy for a
    new era. American Sea Power in the 21st Century is the projection of
    power, and more: it extends beyond the sea; it is Joint and
    interagency; it requires awareness and understanding; it enables access
    and cooperation; it provides for presence and interaction; it is driven
    by compassion and collective security; and, it is decisive and lethal.
        Your Navy would not have remained, for 230 years, the world's
    premier maritime force without the constant support of the Congress and
    the people of the United States of America. I would therefore like to
    thank you once again, on behalf of the dedicated men and women who
    daily go in harm's way for our great nation, for all that you do to
    make the United States Navy a force for good today and for the future.
                                     ______

                Biographical Sketch of Admiral Michael G. Mullen

        A native of Los Angeles, Calif., Admiral Mullen graduated from the
    U.S. Naval Academy in 1968. He has served in Allied, Joint and Navy
    positions, overseas and in both the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets.
        As a junior officer, he served in various leadership positions
    aboard USS Collett (DD 730), USS Blandy (DD 943), USS Fox (CG 33) and
    USS Sterett (CG 31). Adm. Mullen commanded three ships: USS Noxubee
    (AOG 56), USS Goldsborough (DDG 20), and USS Yorktown (CG 48). As a
    Flag Officer, he commanded Cruiser-Destroyer Group Two and the George
    Washington Battle Group. Adm. Mullen's last command at sea was as
    Commander, U.S. Second Fleet/Commander, NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic.
        Ashore, Adm. Mullen served as Company Officer and Executive
    Assistant to the Commandant of Midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy. He
    also served in the Bureau of Naval Personnel as Director, Surface
    Officer Distribution and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense on
    the staff of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. On the
    Chief of Naval Operations' staff, Adm. Mullen served as Deputy Director
    and Director of Surface Warfare; Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for
    Resources, Requirements, and Assessments (N8); and as the 32nd Vice
    Chief of Naval Operations.
        Adm. Mullen graduated from the Naval Postgraduate School in
    Monterey, Calif., with a Master of Science degree in Operations
    Research. He is also a graduate of the Advanced Management Program at
    the Harvard Business School.
        Adm. Mullen's most recent operational assignment was Commander,
    Joint Force Command Naples/Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. Based
    in Naples, Italy, he had operational responsibility for NATO missions
    in the Balkans, Iraq, and the Mediterranean as well as providing
    overall command, operational control, and coordination of U.S. naval
    forces in the European Command area of responsibility.
        Admiral Mullen became the 28th Chief of Naval Operations on July
    22, 2005.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Admiral. General
    Hagee, do you have a statement, sir?
        General Hagee. Sir, I do. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye,
    Chairman Cochran, others members of this distinguished
    subcommittee, good morning.
        Senator Inouye, like the Secretary of the Navy and the
    Chief of Naval Operations, on behalf of all marines I would
    like to extend our most heartfelt condolences and sympathies on
    the loss of your wife Maggie, and assure you that our thoughts
    and prayers are with you during this time.
        It's my privilege to be here with my shipmate and good
    friend, the CNO, Admiral Mike Mullen. As he mentioned, we've
    known each other for some time, since 1964, and we actually
    like each other--since 1964, and it does in fact make a
    difference.
        And I'm also happy to be here with our new Secretary of the
    Navy, to report on the state of your Marine Corps.
        Sixty-one years ago today, there was a slight pause in the
    battle for Iwo Jima. The flag raising on Mount Suribachi had
    occurred just a few days earlier, but had seemed a distant
    memory to the marines on the island. As Lieutenant General
    Howlin Mad Smith and the leadership of the 5th Amphibious Corps
    peered down from the Motoyama Plateau, they contemplated the
    scope of hardships they would endure in securing the remaining
    northern third of that island from a determined and lethal foe.
        Today we pause to report on the state of the Department of
    the Navy in our preparedness for the unknown battles which
    await us in this long war against yet, another determined and
    lethal foe.
        Marines executing this war today know they're well
    equipped, well trained, well led, and have the backing of the
    American people and their Congress. They and their families
    also know they are doing something important and they are
    making a difference.
        On behalf of all marines and our families, I would like to
    thank you for your strong and unwavering support.
        I would also like to extend my personal appreciation for
    the time you take to visit our wounded and console the families
    of our fallen warriors.
        Now in the fifth year of this conflict, the future remains
    uncertain. However, history teaches us that uncertainty is best
    met with flexibility and adaptability--two principles which
    have long characterized your Marine Corps.
        My written statement lays out some of the actions we've
    taken in training, education, and organization to increase our
    flexibility and adaptability in the fight against this ruthless
    and determined enemy.
        We have embraced culture and language as combat
    multipliers, we are institutionalizing this effort through our
    Center for Advanced Operational Cultural Learning. This center
    will help develop regional expertise in our career marines.
        Additionally, we have revamped our pre-deployment training
    at Twentynine Palms, Ridgeport, California and Yuma, Arizona to
    better prepare our units for the nontraditional environment.
        Finally on February 24, we activated the Marine Corps
    Forces Special Operations Command (SOCOM), which will add about
    2,600 marines to SOCOM, increasing its capacity and capability.
    With over one-third of our operating forces deployed, we retain
    the ability to rapidly respond to additional contingencies as
    they rise.
        This Nation invests tremendous capital in its naval forces
    and this past year, these forces responded across the spectrum
    of conflict, from Iraq to tsunami relief in the Indian Ocean,
    to earthquake relief in Pakistan, to aid for fellow Americans
    across Louisiana and Mississippi, and finally, in a mudslide
    engulfed a village in the Philippines. Maritime forces have
    demonstrated their readiness, relevance, and responsiveness as
    part of the joint force.
        In terms of recruiting and retention, this past year has
    been challenging, but successful. Thanks to the dedication of
    your marines and your continued support of our recruit
    advertising and re-enlistment bonuses we continue to make
    mission. Further, the quality of marines we recruit and retain
    remains high.
        We continue to modify our equipment, training, and tactics
    to the adaptive enemy of today and to be ready to face the
    warfighting challenges of the future.
        However, as I mentioned in previous testimony, the current
    operational tempo and environment are significantly degrading
    the service life of our equipment. We estimate the total cost
    to reset our force is about $11.7 billion. This amount is in
    addition to the annual cost of war needs, which we estimate to
    be approximately $5.3 billion in fiscal year 2006.
        We ask for your support of the supplemental request to
    reset our capabilities and ensure we remain prepared for the
    unforeseen challenges of tomorrow.
        However in the final analysis, it is not the equipment but
    our people who make the difference. Be they Active Reserve or
    civilian, your marines and their families are making the
    greatest sacrifices. I know that you share the conviction that
    we cannot do enough for these young Americans who so willingly
    go forward for the sake of our country.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I firmly believe that the most dangerous weapons system on
    any battlefield is a well armed, well educated U.S. marine and
    with your continued support, this will not change.
        I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of General Michael W. Hagee

        Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, distinguished members of the
    Subcommittee, it is my honor to report to you on the state of your
    Marine Corps. Now entering the fifth year of what is a long war, your
    Marine Corps is wholly fixed on this challenge to the Nation. This
    conflict requires the uniformed services to provide a broader range of
    capabilities supporting extended global operations, ultimately
    delivering greater agility, adaptability, and duration of sustainment.
    While our armed forces continue to predominate in traditional warfare,
    our current enemy necessitates the adoption of unconventional and
    indirect approaches throughout the Joint Force.
        History reveals a pattern of Marines aggressively adapting to
    circumstances, and we consider ourselves in the vanguard of instituting
    the changes required to address the present challenge. The over 30,000
    Marines serving on the forward fronts in the Central Command Area of
    Operations today are a manifestation of transformational advances in
    manning, training, educating, and equipping to confront this latest
    threat to our way of life. From force structure revision, to urban
    training facilities, to cultural and language instruction, to
    leveraging emerging technologies, our efforts recognize the new
    character of conflict, and we are delivering both Marines and Marine
    units that thrive in the uncertainty which will likely define warfare
    throughout the coming decades.
        This war, like any other, is costly, and the essence of this
    statement outlines the challenges we share in sustaining the caliber of
    service the Nation has come to expect from its Corps of Marines.
    Readiness is the enduring hallmark of your Marine Corps, and if this
    war ended today, we would require continued supplemental budgetary
    support in order to ``reset the force.'' We also remain committed to
    providing for your Marines and their families in a manner befitting
    their dedication and selfless sacrifice.
        Marines are grateful for the unwavering support of Congress,
    welcome the opportunity to report on the present state of the Corps,
    and consider service to the Nation during this demanding period a
    distinct privilege.

                                  INTRODUCTION

         Today, Marines are forward deployed in prosecution of the Global
    War on Terror, as they have been since that fateful day in September
    2001. The performance of Marines on the field of battle during these
    last four years has validated our commitment to warfighting excellence
    and to remaining the world's foremost expeditionary warfighting
    organization.
        Our bedrock is our warrior ethos and the philosophy that every
    Marine is first a rifleman. We recruit quality Americans whom we then
    infuse into a culture that requires individuals to think independently
    and act aggressively in chaotic and unpredictable environments where
    information is neither complete nor certain. We rigorously train these
    young Marines to perform under adverse circumstances, and to accept
    greater responsibility as part of a team. We educate these Marines and
    their leaders to prepare their minds for the intellectual component of
    the clash of wills and chaos inherent to combat. These past four years
    have further validated our forward deployed posture, our maneuver
    warfare doctrine, our adaptive logistics backbone, and the unique
    flexibility and scalability of the combined-arms Marine Air-Ground Task
    Force construct. Time and again, we have delivered to the Combatant
    Commander a solution tailored to their joint force requirements.
        In an uncertain world, readiness is the coin of the realm. In
    November 2001, at the direction of the Combatant Commander, we
    projected the combat power of two Marine Expeditionary Units some 350
    miles into the heart of Afghanistan during Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.
    Less than 18 months later, we deployed 70,000 Marines and Sailors in
    less than 60 days in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. As part of the
    Joint Force, our 500-mile push from Kuwait, through Baghdad, and up to
    Saddam's hometown of Tikrit more than doubled our doctrinal expectation
    for force projection.
        After a short respite at home, we again demonstrated the readiness
    and responsiveness to the Joint Force Commander by deploying 25,000
    Marines back to Iraq in March 2004. We are now entering our third year
    in the Al Anbar province and the servicemen and women of the Multi-
    National-Force-West have acquitted themselves in such locales as
    Fallujah, Ramadi, and throughout the Euphrates River valley with valor
    and distinction.
        In 2004, we also provided a combined-arms Marine Expeditionary Unit
    for the ``Spring Offensive'' in Afghanistan, significantly reducing the
    Taliban's influence and setting the stage for the national elections
    which followed. We continue to provide support in Afghanistan in the
    form of embedded training teams with the Afghan National Army.
        The Nation invests tremendous capital in its naval forces, and this
    past summer the Navy-Marine team had an opportunity to turn that
    capability homeward in support of our fellow Americans along the Gulf
    Coast ravaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Organized as a Special-
    Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force, over 2,500 Marines from both the
    active and reserve forces came to the aid of communities across
    Louisiana and Mississippi. Marines and Sailors welcomed this direct
    involvement in a domestic humanitarian crisis that further highlighted
    the strategic flexibility of naval forces in meeting challenges to the
    Nation both around the world and at home.
        The Nation is receiving a superb return on its investment in the
    world's finest expeditionary force. Nearly one in three Marines of our
    operating forces is today forward deployed or forward based protecting
    America's interests.
           resetting the force and preparing for the next contingency
        The War on Terror has made extraordinary demands on the Marine
    Corps' tactical equipment. Extended operations in Iraq, Afghanistan,
    and elsewhere over the past several years have severely tested our
    materiel. The great majority of our equipment has passed the test of
    combat with flying colors. However, it has been subjected to a
    lifetimes' worth of wear stemming from vehicle mileage, operating
    hours, and harsh environmental conditions.

                                    Figure 1

        We documented this situation last year in an Iraqi Theatre
    Assessment of Equipment Readiness Report. Figure 1 demonstrates the
    impact of the operating tempo on both ground and air vehicles. We have
    responded to enemy tactics and techniques, such as the employment of
    increasingly destructive improvised explosive devices (IED), by adding
    armor protection to vehicles--thereby increasing their weight and
    ultimately increasing the wear and tear on frames, axles, and
    suspension systems. In the case of the HMMWV, for example, its expected
    ``peacetime'' service life is 14 years. Under current conditions, we
    will have to replace it after less than 5 years of service in Iraq.
        The significant distances in the Al Anbar Province, which is
    approximately the size of the state of Utah, exacerbates the demand on
    equipment. The extended distances, enemy tactics, and continuous nature
    of operations have placed extraordinary demands on Marine engineering
    equipment as well. We maintain roads and infrastructure across the Al
    Anbar province to accommodate the heavy logistics support demanded by
    coalition forces. Control points and compounds require round-the-clock
    power generation for vital communications, equipment repairs, and
    hospitals. These requirements place a heavy demand on the existing
    inventory of Marine Corps' engineering equipment such as power
    generators, tractors, forklifts, and road construction vehicles.
        Our expansive area also requires our headquarters' elements to
    perform the command and control functions normally held by the next
    higher command in traditional tactical and operational settings (e.g.,
    battalion headquarters often function like a regimental headquarters).
    The Marine Expeditionary Force in Al Anbar has command and control
    requirements that far exceed the existing organizational tables of
    equipment.
        The Equipment Readiness Report also noted that the types of
    missions we are conducting in Iraq require in increase in the number of
    some weapons contained in the units' Table of Equipment allowance. For
    example, most infantry, logistics, and security battalions are
    employing twice the number of .50 caliber, M240G and MK19 machineguns
    they normally rate.
        Supplemental funding (Figure 2) is essential to address ``Reset the
    Force'' and wartime contingency costs since our annual baseline budget
    procurement averages approximately $1.5-$2.0 billion.

                                    Figure 2

        Where there are equipment shortages, we equip units preparing to
    deploy at the expense of our non-deploying units. Maintaining the
    readiness of our forward deployed units remains our top priority, and
    their readiness remains high. The equipment shortages experienced by
    non-deploying forces are exacerbated by the requirement to source the
    Iraqi Transition Teams (advisors). Although the overall readiness of
    our remain-behind units is suffering, it will improve when sufficient
    quantities of equipment procured via supplemental funding becomes
    available. Until then, sustaining the Corps' readiness requires that
    our remain-behind units continue cross leveling equipment with each
    force rotation.
        Reset of Strategic Prepositioning Programs.--Equipment from the
    Marine Corps' two strategic prepositioning programs (the Maritime
    Prepositioning Force and Marine Corps Prepositioning Program--Norway)
    has been employed in support of the Global War on Terror. Maritime
    Prepositioning Ships Squadrons 1 and 3 are fully reconstituted. The
    majority of Maritime Prepositioning Ships Squadron 2's equipment was
    employed during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM II. This squadron will complete
    its initial reconstitution in April 2006, but will only be partially
    mission capable until all ground equipment is delivered. The Marine
    Corps Prepositioning Program--Norway currently possesses approximately
    35 percent of its ground equipment, and the other classes of supply are
    at 98 percent or better. The majority of the other Maritime
    Prepositioning Ships squadron capabilities range between 92-100
    percent.
                    PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE: THE LAST YEAR

    Recent Modernization and Transformation Initiatives
        Componency.--Over the last year, we have restructured our service
    components to meet the requirements of the Unified Command Plan,
    National Strategy, and Combatant Commanders. This effort has resulted
    in four major changes to our componency construct. First, we
    established Marine Forces Command as the Marine Corps component to the
    Joint Force Provider, U.S. Joint Forces Command. Secondly, U.S. Marine
    Corps Forces, Central Command is now a stand-alone component staff of
    approximately 100 active duty Marines. Third, the Commander of Marine
    Forces Reserve and his staff have assumed the Service Component
    responsibilities for U.S. Northern Command. Finally, on February 24,
    2006, we established a Marine Component within Special Operations
    Command (MARSOC). The new Marine Component will provide approximately
    2,600 USMC/Navy billets within U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM),
    lead by a Marine major general. The MARSOC will provide additional
    capability and capacity to SOCOM by adding forces that will conduct
    direct action, special reconnaissance, counterterrorism and foreign
    internal defense.
        Force Structure Review Group.--In 2004, we conducted an extensive
    Total Force Structure Review recommending approximately 15,000
    structure changes to improve the Marine Corps' ability to meet the
    long-term needs of the Global War on Terror and the emerging
    requirements of the 21st Century. This effort was end strength and
    structure neutral--offsets to balance these increases in capabilities
    come from military to civilian conversions and the disestablishment and
    reorganization of less critical capabilities.
        We are currently implementing these changes. Additionally, we will
    stand up a Capabilities Assessment Group in the first part of March
    2006 to take a focused look at our operating forces in order to ensure
    we have properly incorporated lessons learned on the battlefield, QDR
    guidance, and the MARSOC standup.
        The Marine Corps continues to examine other opportunities to
    augment needed capabilities. For example, we are assigning each
    artillery regiment a secondary mission to conduct civil military
    operations (CMO). To do this, each regiment will be augmented by a
    reserve civil affairs capability. By assigning a secondary CMO mission
    to artillery units, we have augmented our high-demand/low density civil
    affairs capability while retaining much needed artillery units. We will
    continue to look for additional innovative ways to maximize our
    capabilities within our existing force structure.
        Regionalization of Bases and Stations.--The Marine Corps is
    transforming its bases from singularly managed and resourced entities
    to ones strategically managed in geographic regions. With the exception
    of our recruit training depots, our bases and stations will fall under
    the purview of five Marine Corps Installation Commands with the
    majority of the installations under the oversight of Marine Corps
    Installation Command--East and Marine Corps Installation Command--West.
    Regionalization goals include providing optimal warfighter support,
    improving alignment, enhancing the use of regional assets, returning
    Marines to the Operating Forces, and reducing costs.
    Programmatic and Organizational Developments
        MV-22.--VMX-22 completed Operational Evaluation in June 2005, and
    the Operational Test report was completed and released in August 2005.
    The report found the MV-22 Block A to be operationally effective and
    suitable. All Key Performance Parameters met or exceeded threshold
    requirements, and on September 28, 2005, the V-22 Program Defense
    Acquisition Board approved Milestone B and authorized the program to
    begin Full Rate Production. Twenty-nine Block A aircraft have been
    delivered and are supporting training at Marine Corps Air Station, New
    River, North Carolina. The first CH-46E squadron stood down in June
    2005 to begin transition to the MV-22 and is scheduled to deploy in the
    fall of 2007.
        KC-130J.--In February 2005, the KC-130J attained initial
    operational capability (IOC). The aircraft has been continuously
    deployed in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM since IOC and has
    provided the warfighter a state of the art, multi-mission, tactical
    aerial refueling, and fixed wing assault support asset that has
    exceeded expectations. The introduction of the MV-22, combined with the
    forced retirement of the legacy aircraft due to corrosion, fatigue
    life, and parts obsolescence, significantly increases the requirement
    for the accelerated procurement of the KC-130J. The Marine Corps is
    currently in a multi-year procurement program with the Air Force to
    procure a total of 34 aircraft by the end of fiscal year 2008. This
    number is 17 aircraft short of the inventory objective of 51 necessary
    to support the Marine, Joint, and Combined forces.
        M777A1 Lightweight Howitzer.--The new M777A1 lightweight howitzer
    replaces the M198 howitzers. The howitzer can be lifted by the MV-22
    tilt-rotor and CH-53E helicopter and is paired with the Medium Tactical
    Vehicle Replacement truck for improved cross-country mobility. The
    M777A1, through design innovation, navigation and positioning aides,
    and digital fire control, offers significant improvements in lethality,
    survivability, mobility, and durability over the M198 howitzer. The
    Marine Corps began fielding the first of 356 new howitzers to the
    operating forces in April 2005 and expects to complete fielding in
    calendar year 2009.
        High Mobility Artillery Rocket System.--The High Mobility Artillery
    Rocket System (HIMARS) fulfills a critical range and volume gap in
    Marine Corps fire support assets by providing 24-hour, all weather,
    ground-based, indirect precision and volume fires throughout all phases
    of combat operations ashore. We will field 40 HIMARS systems (18 to one
    artillery battalion of the active component, 18 to one battalion of the
    Reserve component, and 4 used for training/attrition). When paired with
    the acquisition of Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System rockets, HIMARS
    will provide a highly responsive, precision fire capability to our
    forces in conventional as well as unconventional operations.
        Expeditionary Fire Support System.--The Expeditionary Fire Support
    System (EFSS) will be the principal indirect fire support system for
    the vertical assault element of Marine Air-Ground Task force executing
    Ship-to-Objective Maneuver. The EFSS is a rifled-towed 120 mm mortar
    paired with an internally transportable vehicle, which permits the
    entire mortar/vehicle combination to be internally transported aboard
    MV-22 and CH-53E aircraft. EFSS-equipped units will provide the ground
    component of a vertical assault element with immediately responsive,
    organic indirect fires at ranges beyond current infantry battalion
    mortars. Initial operational capability is planned for fiscal year 2006
    and full operational capability is planned for fiscal year 2010.
        Explosive Ordnance Disposal Equipment Modernization.--Explosive
    Ordnance Disposal equipment is undergoing major configuration changes
    and modernization. Our current modernization focus is towards
    neutralization and render-safe of unexploded ordnance/improvised
    explosive devices. The following robotic systems were tested and
    approved for Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal usage: Bombot, Manual
    Transport Robotic System, Remote Ordnance Neutralization System, and
    RC-50.
        Force Service Support Group Reorganization.--The Force Service
    Support Groups were re-designated as Marine Logistics Groups in August
    2005 as the initial step in the Logistics Modernization effort's
    reorganization initiative. The Marine Logistics Group will be
    reorganized/realigned with standing Direct and General Support
    subordinate units and include the Combat Logistics Regiment Forward,
    Direct Support Combat Logistics Regiment, and General Support Combat
    Logistics Regiment. Reorganization to the Marine Logistics Group
    facilitates rapid and seamless task organization and deployment
    operations, experienced logistics command and control, operations and
    planning support, and strong habitual relationships between supported
    and supporting units.
    Equipping Marines
        Force Protection.--Unable to match our conventional force in like
    fashion, our enemies have resorted to asymmetric tactics such as the
    Improvised Explosive Device. Thanks to your support, we completed the
    installation of the Marine Armor Kits (MAK) on all A2 HMMWV last year.
    We will complete the transition to an all M-1114 fleet by July 2006.
    The Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement Armor System for our 7-ton
    trucks is scheduled for completion in May 2006. Additionally, we
    continue to bolster our force protection capabilities through explosive
    device jammers, additional vehicle armoring efforts, personal extremity
    protective equipment, and a host of unmanned ground vehicles.
        Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Armor.--We have joined with the U.S. Army
    to look at the M-1151/2 as a mid-term replacement for our base HMMWV
    and A2 models that have reached the end of their service life. The M-
    1151/2 is the bridge to the next generation of combat tactical vehicle.
    The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Program will define this next
    generation vehicle. This program is a Joint Army-Marine effort to
    establish the requirement and way-ahead for the upcoming fiscal year
    2008 Program Objective Memorandum. The design of this vehicle will
    incorporate the recent lessons learned from Iraq and technical advances
    in survivability, energy management, and network operations to provide
    the survivability, mobility and tactical flexibility.
        Individual Marine Initiatives.--We have been able to address the
    highest priority capability gaps of our deploying forces associated
    with the individual Marine. The issue of protection, however, must be
    balanced with agility, weight and heat retention. An infantryman going
    into today battle carries nearly 100 pounds of equipment and
    ammunition--much of this for individual protection. This is too much.
    In combat lives can just as easily be lost due to an inability to move
    swiftly across a ``kill zone,'' or from mental and physical fatigue, as
    from bullets and shrapnel. We will never stop searching for ways to
    better protect the warrior of tomorrow by taking advantage of emerging
    technologies, but we must strike a balance between individual
    protection and mission accomplishment.
        The Lightweight Helmet provides improved ballistic protection
    capability over the existing helmet while reducing weight by one-half
    pound and introducing an improved suspension system to increase
    comfort. We have fielded over 74,000 Lightweight Helmets to date, and
    we plan to procure 43,145 more in fiscal year 2006. The Enhanced Small
    Arms Protective Insert (E-SAPI) provides increased ballistic protection
    over the existing SAPI plate. The plates weigh approximately 1.5 pounds
    more than the standard SAPI per plate depending on size. Delivery of E-
    SAPI plates began in September 2005. In addition, the procurement of
    side SAPI plates further enhances the warfighters' protection,
    survivability and armor options. In April we will complete delivery of
    37,000 side SAPI plates.
        The QuadGard (QG) system was designed to provide ballistic
    protection for arms and legs in response to blast weapon threats and
    combat casualty trends in OIF. This system is an additive capability
    that integrates with existing armor systems. We procured 4,500 QG
    systems with initial delivery beginning in 1st Quarter, fiscal year
    2006. The Individual Load Bearing Equipment (ILBE) is a direct
    replacement for the Modular Lightweight Load Bearing Equipment system
    that integrates an assault pack and hydration system. We have fielded
    over 96,000 ILBE packs to date and this effort continues.
    Transforming Training and Education
        One of our fundamental tenets--every Marine a rifleman--continues
    to prove its worth in the Global War on Terror. This serves as the
    solid foundation for all of our training, and provides the common core
    that defines every Marine. Over the past year, we have refined our
    training and education programs. Our goal remains the same, to prepare
    and sustain Marine Air-Ground Task Forces enabled by small-unit leaders
    directing small, enhanced units, which have a bias for action, are more
    lethal, and are better able to operate across the spectrum of conflict.
        Culture and Language.--An individual understanding of local culture
    and languages is a force multiplier in irregular operations, such as
    those we are conducting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa. Our cultural
    awareness and language training programs accomplished several
    milestones this past year. The Marine Corps graduated its first class
    of new lieutenants with formal training in the operational aspects of
    foreign cultures. During February 2005, we opened our new Center for
    Advanced Operational Culture Learning, and it is already proving its
    value. The Center has distributed its first basic tactical language
    training programs, preparing individuals to serve in Iraqi Arabic and
    Pan-Sahel French cultures (Pan-Sahel French is a predominant language
    in the former French colonies of Northwest Africa). The Center also
    provided training to our newly established Foreign Military Training
    Unit, as well as to Marines selected to serve as advisors to the Iraqi
    security forces and Afghan National Army. In the future, we look to
    build a permanent facility to house the Center as well as establishing
    satellite sites for sustaining language and culture training in our
    career force.
        Pre-deployment Training Today.--We have embarked on a concerted
    effort to improve our pre-deployment training. At the center of these
    efforts is our revised Pre-Deployment Training Program conducted at the
    Marine Air Ground Combat Center, at Twentynine Palms, California, at
    Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, and at the Mountain Warfare
    Training Center, Bridgeport, California. The real-time and continuous
    connectively with forward forces enables our units in training to apply
    combat lessons learned directly into their pre-deployment training.
    During this past fiscal year over 21,000 Marines received combined arms
    and urban operations training at Twentynine Palms. In addition, over
    4,000 Marines and coalition partners trained in the mountain operations
    course at Bridgeport, and another 11,000 Marines participated in the
    adjacent Desert Talon exercise series at Yuma. The success of our
    Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan is due in large measure to the
    demanding training that they experience at these three sites.
        Modernization of Training Ranges.--In the past two years, and again
    taking advantage of combat lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan,
    we have initiated an unprecedented investment in our training range
    capabilities. We built a robust urban and convoy operations training
    program at our major desert training base at Twentynine Palms,
    California. Marine Corps battalions deploying to Iraq are provided a
    realistic training venue to hone their urban and convoy skills and to
    heighten their awareness of both improvised explosive devices and the
    complexities of stability operations.
        To better prepare your Marines for this ``graduate level'' training
    at Twentynine Palms, we are also providing essential building block
    capabilities in urban warfare at their home stations. Camp Lejeune,
    North Carolina has recently completed fielding a suite of urban and
    convoy training systems on their ranges and with your continued
    support, we hope to do the same at Camp Pendleton, California and the
    Marine Corps bases in Hawaii and Okinawa. We also intend to upgrade our
    aviation urban training facility at Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma and
    to provide an enhanced aviation urban training environment.
    Infrastructure
        Encroachment Partnering.--In fiscal year 2005, the Marine Corps
    completed six projects to acquire development rights over 1,227 acres
    at a cost of $8 million, which was split between the Marine Corps and
    our partners.
        The Marine Corps continues to use legislation that allows the
    Secretary of the Interior to accept Integrated Natural Resources
    Management Plans as suitable substitutes for critical habitat
    designation to protect and enhance populations of these species while
    continuing to conduct essential training.
        Public Private Venture Family Housing.--Our efforts to improve
    housing for Marines and their families continue. Thanks to previous
    Congressional action that eliminated the budgetary authority cap on
    Public Private Venture investments in military family housing, the
    Marine Corps will have contracts in place by the end of fiscal year
    2007 to eliminate all inadequate family housing.
        Military Construction.--Our Military Construction plan now focuses
    on housing for our single Marines. Barracks are a significant critical
    quality of life element in taking care of single Marines. We are
    committed to providing adequate billeting for are all are unmarried
    Marines by 2012. We tripled the amount in bachelor housing from fiscal
    year 2006 to 2007. We will triple it again in fiscal year 2008. We are
    also committed to funding barracks' furnishings on a seven-year
    replacement cycle and prioritizing barracks repair projects to preempt
    a backlog of repairs.
        Energy Efficiency in Transportation.--The Marine Corps has exceeded
    the Energy Policy Act requirements for the past five years and has been
    a leader in the Department of Defense and among other Federal Agencies
    in the adoption of alternative fuels. Through use of biodiesel
    neighborhood electric vehicles, we have reduced petroleum use 20
    percent from a 1999 baseline, and are expanding the deployment of
    hybrid vehicles in our garrison fleet. We are also supporting future
    use of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles with the establishment of a
    refueling station aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California.
    Manning the Force and Quality of Life
        Though we embrace the advances of technology, we believe that the
    most important asset on any battlefield is a well-equipped, well-
    trained, and well-led United States Marine--our people make the
    difference. We hold that today's Marines are unique and special
    individuals, and the character of their service throughout the Global
    War on Terror has rivaled that of any preceding generation. Recruiting
    and retaining a force of this quality requires the dedicated efforts of
    our recruiters, career retention specialists, manpower experts, and
    leaders throughout the Corps. Ours is a force of active duty, reserve,
    and civilian Marines, as well as thousands of Marine families who share
    in the sacrifices to our Nation. Though the mission must always come
    first, we continue to search for opportunities to improve the
    experience of serving as a Marine both during and after their active
    service--once a Marine, always a Marine.
        Retention.--Retaining the best and the brightest Marines is a top
    manpower priority. Our future officer and staff non-commissioned
    officer ranks are dependant on our successful accomplishment of this
    mission.
        We have two enlisted retention measures to ensure healthy service
    continuation rates. The First Term Alignment Plan (FTAP) involves the
    first reenlistment of Marines and we consistently achieved our goals
    over the past thirteen years. The Subsequent Term Alignment Plan (STAP)
    involves the subsequent reenlistments of Marines, those who likely
    remain in the Corps for a career, and we have consistently attained our
    goals since creating the STAP in 2002. In fiscal year 2005, we exceeded
    the FTAP requirement by achieving 103 percent of this retention
    mission, with notable success in the infantry community; we also
    exceeded the STAP retention mission. The substantial increase in the
    infantry reenlistment rate during fiscal year 2005 was influenced by
    higher Selective Reenlistment Bonuses (SRBs).
        Certain Military Occupational Specialties (MOS') perennially suffer
    high attrition, such as those involving highly technical skills or
    extensive security clearances. Contributing factors include lucrative
    civilian employment opportunities for those Marines who attain these
    specialized skills and qualifications. We address this challenge by
    targeting these military specialties with higher SRBs. Retaining high
    quality and the proper skills in our ranks necessitates military
    compensation that is competitive with the private sector. Sustainment
    of SRB funding remains a crucial element to our ongoing efforts to
    retain these valuable skills.
        The retention forecast for the officer corps in the near term is
    positive and consistent with our historic average of 90.8 percent. The
    close of fiscal year 2005 saw officer retention at 91.3 percent. The
    Marine Corps has active programs in place, both monetary and non-
    monetary, to ensure that officer retention remains high. All of these
    programs provide incentives to officers for continued service even in
    the face of significant operational tempo, while allowing flexibility
    for Manpower planners to meet requirements across the Marine Corps
    Total Force.
        Selected Reserve enlisted retention for fiscal year 2005 continued
    to be strong at 79.5 percent, well above our historical norm. Reserve
    officer retention of 80.1 percent was also above the historical norm of
    75.3 percent
        Recruiting.--An equally important factor in sustaining a viable
    force is continuing to recruit tremendous young men and women with the
    right character, commitment, and drive to become Marines. In fiscal
    year 2005, the Marine Corps overcame unprecedented recruiting
    challenges and achieved over 100 percent of our active component
    accession goal with no degradation in quality.
        The Marine Corps Reserve achieved 101 percent of its enlisted
    recruiting goals. We achieved our officer accessions goals as well, but
    reserve officer numbers remain challenging, as our primary accession
    source is from officers that are leaving active duty. We appreciate the
    continued authorization for a Selected Reserve Officer Affiliation
    Bonus in the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act. It
    continues to make a significant contribution in this critical area.
        We anticipate that both active and reserve recruiting will remain
    challenging in fiscal year 2006, and we welcome the continued support
    of Congress for a strong enlistment bonus and other recruiting
    programs, such as recruiting advertising, which will be essential to us
    in meeting these challenges.
        Reserve Marines.--To date, more than 37,500 Reserve Marines have
    served on active duty in the Global War on Terror. As part of an
    integrated Total Force, our Reserve Marines and units receive the same
    pre-deployment training and serve alongside their Active Component
    counterparts. Currently, over 7,000 reserve Marines are on active duty,
    and the Marine Corps Reserve expects to provide approximately 4,250
    Marines in support of operations in Iraq in 2006. Overall, our Reserves
    provide personnel for a wide-variety of operations and activities,
    including Iraq military transition, Afghan National Army embedded
    training, civil affairs, and personnel recovery and processing. They
    also perform anti-terrorist and humanitarian duties in the Horn of
    Africa, Afghanistan, Central America, and the Caribbean. The strength
    of integrating our Active and Reserve components into a Total Marine
    Corps Force epitomizes the warrior concept of ``one team, one fight.''
        Civilian Marines.--Civilian Marines continue to provide an
    invaluable service to the Corps as an integral component of our Total
    Force. Working in true partnership with Marines, Civilian Marines will
    continue to play in important role in supporting the mission of the
    Marine Corps and the Global War on Terror. Our commitment is to define
    for them what the Marine Corps will offer its Civilian Marines, and
    what the Corps expects from this select group who support our Marines.
        Military to Civilian Conversions.--The Marine Corps continues to
    pursue sensible military-to-civilian conversions in support of Marine
    Corps Warfighting initiatives. These conversions are important because
    they increase the number of Marines in the operating force and help
    reduce stress on the force. Funding remains a critical issue to the
    success of this initiative. Congressional cuts in both the fiscal year
    2005 Appropriations Bill ($35 million) and fiscal year 2006
    Appropriations Bill ($20 million) has impacted our ability to execute
    our planned fiscal year 2005 program and will reduce our planned fiscal
    year 2006 conversions.
        National Security Personnel System.--The Marine Corps is committed
    to successful implementation of the National Security Personnel System
    and creating and maintaining an innovative and distinctive Civilian
    Marine workforce capable of meeting the ever-changing requirements of
    today and the challenges of tomorrow. The Marine Corps is actively
    participating with the Department of Defense in the development and
    implementation of this new personnel system. Following an intensive
    training program for supervisors, managers, human resources
    specialists, employees, commanders and senior management, we will begin
    implementation.
    Quality of Life for Our Marines and Their Families
        For Marines, success has always been measured first on the
    battlefield, but part and parcel to this is the health and welfare of
    Marines and the families who support them. As an expeditionary force,
    Marines are accustomed to frequent deployments, yet the current
    environment contains increased elements of personal danger and family
    risk that must be addressed with appropriate and timely support. We
    have been careful to monitor our programs to ensure our Marines and
    their families receive the necessary care to sustain them throughout
    the deployment cycle. In this regard, our Marine Corps Community
    Services (MCCS) organizations' combined structure of Family Services,
    Morale, Welfare and Recreation Programs, Voluntary Off Duty Education,
    and Exchange operations has positioned us to efficiently and
    effectively leverage and direct community services assets to help
    Marines and their families meet the challenges associated with the
    Marine Corps lifestyle and current operational tempo.
        For Marines in theater, few things are more important than staying
    in touch with their loved ones at home. To keep communication open
    between deployed Marines and their families, we provide phone service,
    mail service, and our Internet-based mail service, ``MotoMail,'' which
    has created more than half a million letters since its inception in
    December 2004.
        Combat and Operational Stress Control.--While our Marines and their
    families have proven to be resilient ``warriors,'' combat and
    operational stress is not an uncommon reaction. We closely interact
    with Marines and their families to reassure them; we provide many
    services and programs for help and urge service members and their
    families to seek the help they require.
        To integrate our combat and operational stress control (COSC)
    programs and capabilities properly, we have established a COSC Section
    within our Manpower and Reserve Affairs department. To gain clarity of
    mission, we instituted a tracking system that allows Commanders to
    monitor COSC training and decompression requirements. As a component of
    COSC, we created a web-based information and referral tool that leaders
    at all levels can readily access. The ``Leader's Guide for Managing
    Marines in Distress'' provides specific guidance on 40 distress areas.
        The Marine Reserves, through their Chaplain Corps, have developed
    Marine and Family Workshops (MFW), which are a post-deployment program
    designed to assist Marines and their family members with return and
    reunion stressors and adjustment difficulties. The goals and objectives
    of the workshop are to: (1) provide an opportunity for Marines and
    their family members to strengthen their coping skills; (2) mitigate
    the impact of traumatic events and war zone stressors; (3) accelerate
    the normal recovery process; and (4) identify those who might need
    additional help and provide resources.
        Casualty Support.--Our support and dedication to the families of
    our fallen Marines and their survivors is especially strong. Casualty
    support is a duty and honor. It is also a human process requiring a
    measured and thoughtful engagement by our Casualty Assistance Calls
    Officers (CACOs). As with our other deployment-related programs, our
    casualty process has evolved and improved significantly. Our CACOs
    monitor the survivor's transition through the grief process--from
    casualty notification, to burial, to ensuring survivors receive the
    appropriate benefits. CACOs connect families needing extended support
    to a Long-Term Survivor Case Manager who personally monitors and
    communicates with them to ensure they receive the support they need for
    as long as it is required.
        Critical Incident Stress Management Teams.--In cases of mass
    casualties experienced by a command or unit, whether combat, natural
    disasters, training, or missions, we use a Department of Defense
    sponsored Managed Health Network capability where trained Critical
    Incident Stress Management teams provide crisis management briefings to
    family members and friends of the unit. During the briefings, Marine
    Corps personnel, Chaplains, and Managed Health Network counselors
    provide information and answer questions concerning the casualties.
    These crisis response teams provide support at remote sites throughout
    the country, making them highly useful in situations where Reserves are
    involved. In particular, after Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 25th
    Marines experienced mass casualties in Iraq last summer, crisis
    management briefings were conducted at various cities in Ohio where
    questions about the unit were answered, briefs were provided on helping
    children cope, individual counseling was offered to family members, and
    materials on support services were distributed.
        Marine for Life--Injured Support.--Built on the philosophy ``Once a
    Marine, Always a Marine'' and fulfilling our obligation to ``take care
    of our own,'' the Marine For Life program offers support to
    approximately 27,000 honorably discharged Marines transitioning from
    active service back to civilian life each year.
        Leveraging the organizational network and strengths of the Marine
    for Life program, we implemented an Injured Support program during
    January 2005 to assist combat injured Marines, Sailors serving with
    Marines, and their families. The program essentially seeks to bridge
    the gap that can exist between military medical care and the Department
    of Veterans Affairs, providing continuity of support through transition
    and assistance for several years afterwards.
        The program recently assigned two full-time Marine Corps liaison
    officers to the Seamless Transition Office at the Veterans Affairs.
    These liaison officers interface between the Veterans Health
    Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the Marine
    Corps on individual cases to facilitate cooperative solutions to
    transition issues.
        Additionally, the Injured Support program conducts direct outreach
    to injured Marines and Sailors via phone and site visits to the
    National Naval Medical Center, Walter Reed, and Brooke Army Medical
    Centers. On average, 30 percent of our seriously injured Marines
    requested and received some type of assistance.
        Lastly, the program continues to work closely with Office of the
    Secretary of Defense (OSD) on Marine Corps-related injury cases.
    Information sharing between the program and OSD contributes to
    developing capabilities for the Military Severely Injured Center
    (formerly known as The Military Severely Injured Joint Support
    Operations Call Center).
        Healthcare.--Marines receive high quality, state of the art care
    from a worldwide Military Health System. We enjoy the lowest disease,
    non-battle injury rates in history and our Marines know that if they
    are injured or wounded in action they have an unprecedented better than
    97 percent survival rate once they arrive at one of our Forward
    Resuscitative Surgical units. The Military Health System provides a
    superb care and health benefit program for our Marines, their families,
    and our retired population--services we must sustain. Unfortunately, at
    its current rate of cost growth, the program is unsustainable. We fully
    support changes in legislation that would allow the Department of
    Defense to ``renorm'' the cost of health care.
        Sexual Assault Prevention and Response.--The Marine Corps has
    maintained vigilance in engaging Marines to prevent sexual assault, to
    care for the victims, and to punish offenders. Our actions included
    establishing a Sexual Assault Prevention Office to serve as the single
    point of contact for all sexual assault matters, such as victim support
    and care, reporting, training, and protective measures. We have also
    instituted extensive sexual assault awareness training into all entry-
    level officer and enlisted training, provided procedures to protect a
    victim's privacy, and trained hundreds of Uniformed Victim Advocates to
    support our deployed Marines. Lastly, to ensure victims receive
    appropriate and responsive care with timely access to services, we have
    appointed command level sexual assault response coordinators to serve
    as the single point of contact for sexual assault matters.

                            CAPABILITIES DEVELOPMENT

        For 230 years, the Marine Corps has answered the Nation's call to
    arms without fail, but we do not intend to rest on those laurels. To
    remain the world's foremost expeditionary warfighting organization and
    preserve our tradition of being most ready when the Nation is least
    ready, the Marine Corps is steadfastly focused on the fundamental
    tenants of our success--a maneuver warfare mindset and a warfighting
    construct built around combined-arms air-ground task forces. We are
    forwarding and expanding these capabilities through aggressive
    experimentation and implementation of our Seabasing and Distributed
    Operations concepts. These transforming concepts will increase our
    agility and tempo in operations, from cooperative security to major
    combat, and perpetuate the unrivaled asymmetric advantage our Nation
    enjoys in its ability to project and sustain power from the sea.
    Warfighting Concepts
        Seabasing.--Seabasing is a national capability for projecting and
    sustaining power globally, using the operational maneuver of sovereign,
    distributed, and networked forces operating from the sea. Seabasing
    will provide unparalleled speed, access, persistence, and is recognized
    as the ``core of naval transformation'' (Naval Transformation Roadmap).
    Seabasing breaks down the traditional sea-land barrier, allowing us to
    use the sea as maneuver space. It enables us to rapidly deploy,
    assemble, and project joint and combined forces anywhere in the world,
    sustaining these forces during operations and reconstituting forces for
    employment elsewhere. Seabasing assures access by leveraging the
    operational maneuver of forces from the sea and by reducing dependence
    upon fixed and vulnerable land bases. This concept will provide our
    combatant commanders with unprecedented versatility in operations
    spanning from cooperative security to major combat. Seabasing also
    represents a present capability that can be tailored and scaled to meet
    a broad range of requirements.
        The Nation invests tremendous resources with the full understanding
    that the ability to project power from the sea is a prerequisite for
    defending our sovereignty. As demonstrated by the Navy/Marine Corps
    response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Seabasing is a relevant and
    adaptive capability possessing the flexibility to meet our countrymen's
    needs around the world and at home. Marines and Sailors embarked from
    such platforms as the USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) provided an asymmetric and
    sustainable solution to the storm ravaged Gulf Coast, and in several
    hundred instances saved the lives of their fellow Americans. In short,
    Seabasing is both a real-world capability and a transformational future
    concept. Realization of the future Seabasing potential is dependent
    upon an investment in ships and other Seabasing platforms.
        Distributed Operations.--The attributes of sea power are extremely
    useful to the Combatant Commanders. However, this operational
    capability must also be matched by increased tactical capabilities that
    enhance the effectiveness of our ``boots on ground'' to enable
    operational maneuver and to create stability, especially in irregular
    and counter-insurgency operations. After a quarter century of
    unwavering commitment to our maneuver warfare philosophy, we are
    harvesting a generation of junior officers and noncommissioned officers
    who are better prepared to assume much greater authority and
    responsibility than traditionally expected at the small-unit level. As
    a complementary capability to our Seabasing concept, Distributed
    Operations describes an operating approach that will create an
    advantage over an adversary through the deliberate use of separation
    and coordinated, interdependent, tactical actions enabled by increased
    access to functional support, as well as by enhanced combat
    capabilities at the small-unit level. The essence of this concept lies
    in enhanced small units gained through making advances on the untapped
    potential of our Marines and the incorporation of emerging technologies
    which will support them.
        Once implemented, a networked Marine Air-Ground Task Force
    operating in a Distributed Operations manner will disperse or mass to
    exploit opportunities the enemy offers. The integration of new
    doctrine, force structure, training, equipment, personnel policies and
    leader development initiatives will afford our tactical and operational
    commanders a significantly enhanced weapon in the increasingly
    sophisticated Global War on Terror.
        Experimentation, Technology and Concepts.--The Marine Corps
    Warfighting Laboratory develops innovative concepts and conducts
    concept-based experimentation in support of the Marine Corps Combat
    Development Command's mission. By examining future warfighting
    concepts, the Lab identifies capability shortfalls and matches them
    with potential solutions that can be effectively addressed by the
    experimentation process. In support of current operations and the
    global war on terrorism, the Lab rapidly identifies transformational
    solutions in the areas of training, equipment, organization and
    doctrine needed to resolve critical short falls and gaps. Experiments
    have resulted in modified and new tactics, training, and procedures for
    Marines operating in Iraq.
        The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory is specifically developing
    methods to defeat improvised explosive devices, provide superior body
    amour, improve vehicle armor, counter the urban sniper, and to counter
    attacks with rockets and mortars. The Marine Corps exploits the
    investment of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),
    other Services, and industry while focusing our Marine Corps unique
    investment to mature Marine Corps combat development and future
    materiel needs. This effort is highlighted by the Lab's interaction
    with DARPA in the successful testing and assessment of improved armor,
    small-unmanned aerial vehicles, and the deployment of extended user
    assessment in Iraq of small numbers of acoustic sniper location
    systems. These successful programs will result in early deployment of
    systems that will contribute to force protection and survivability.
        Sea Viking 06 Advanced Warfighting Experiment.--The Sea Viking 06
    Advanced Warfighting Experiment culminates years of planning, study,
    and experimentation. With a focus on Marine infantrymen, the experiment
    aims to revolutionize Marine Corps warfighting capabilities. By testing
    and examining our current training, organization and equipment against
    new warfighting initiatives (e.g., Distributed Operations), rooted in
    real-world lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, we have adapted and
    overcome deficiencies, allowing the Marine Corps to actualize its
    experiment data and outcomes. Results have produced changes in,
    training, equipment and responsibilities of infantry small unit
    leaders. Such innovation has inspired the establishment of the
    Distributed Operations Implementation Working Group, which socializes
    the changes and implements the changes across the doctrine,
    organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel
    and facilities pillars.
        Because of Sea Viking 06's first Limited Objective Experiment,
    Training and Education Command (TECOM) developed new courses and
    curriculum to formalize the training culture of Marine infantry non-
    commissioned officers. TECOM and the Lab collaborated to establish
    ``Mobile Training Cadres'' to institute a Train the Trainer Course and
    a Tactical Small Unit Leader Course to support company level leaders in
    the development of their small unit leaders, as they will always remain
    our most critical assets in the Global War on Terror. Concurrently,
    Marine Corps Systems Command, through its project managers and Marine
    Expeditionary Rifle Squad program at the forefront, remains acutely
    attuned to all equipment aspects of the Sea Viking experiments,
    ensuring that our Marines have the best equipment available. These same
    innovations, when applied Marine Corps wide, will ensure that Marine
    Forces remain the force of readiness in response to our Nation's future
    needs.
        Countering Irregular Threats.--Consistent with the emerging
    challenges laid out in the National Defense Strategy, we are developing
    new concepts and programs to address the rising salience of irregular
    threats to our security especially that posed by protracted, complex
    insurgencies and terrorism. The rise of irregular and catastrophic
    challenges to international order could potentially include the use of
    weapons of mass destruction by non-state actors seeking to blackmail
    U.S. leaders and foreign policy. Exploring this challenge is a major
    aspect of our annual Expeditionary Warrior wargame this year.
    Enabling Programs
        Amphibious Warfare Ships.--Amphibious ships are the centerpiece of
    the Navy/Marine Corps' forcible entry and Seabasing capability, and
    have played an essential role in the Global War on Terror. Not only
    must our Naval forces maintain the ability to rapidly close, decisively
    employ, and effectively sustain Marines from the sea, they must also
    respond to emerging GWOT requirements, crisis response and humanitarian
    assistance missions on short notice. The Nation would be hard pressed
    to satisfy both requirements with separate forces. Fortunately, we
    possess the ability to conduct both forcible entry and persistent
    global engagement with the same naval force package.
        The current Defense Department force-sizing construct requires the
    capability to respond to two major ``swiftly defeat the efforts''
    events--each of which could require a minimum of 15 capable amphibious
    ships. One of these crises may further necessitate the use of a Marine
    Expeditionary Force requiring 30 operationally available amphibious
    ships. Ten of these ships should be large-deck amphibious ship capable
    of supporting the operations of the air combat element of a Marine
    Expeditionary Force. Today's 35 amphibious warships can surge the
    required 30 operationally available warships and provide the peacetime
    rotation base for Marine Expeditionary Units in up to three regions.
        In part due to the recognized flexibility of these platforms, as
    well as the projected need to enhance their power projection
    capabilities to support stability operations and sustained counter-
    terrorism efforts, many of our coalition partners are planning to
    acquire amphibious shipping with the capacity to support both surface
    and aviation maneuver elements. Such efforts acknowledge the great
    utility of a robust amphibious capability in the face of growing anti-
    access threats.
        Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD).--The LPD 17 San Antonio class of
    amphibious ships represents the Department of the Navy's commitment to
    a modern expeditionary power projection fleet and will assist our naval
    forces across the spectrum of warfare. The lead ship was successfully
    delivered in January 2006. The LPD 17 class replaces four classes of
    older ships--the LKA, LST, LSD 36, and the LPD 4--and is being built
    with a forty year expected service life. The LPD 17 class ships will
    play a key role in supporting the ongoing Global War on Terror by
    forward deploying Marines and their equipment to respond to crises
    abroad. Its unique design will facilitate expanded force coverage and
    decreased reaction times of forward deployed Marine Expeditionary
    Units. In forcible entry operations, the LPD 17 will help maintain a
    robust surface assault and rapid off-load capability for the Marine
    Air-Ground Task Force far into the future.
        Amphibious Assault Ship (Replacement) (LHA(R)).--Our Tarawa-class
    amphibious assault ships reach the end of their service life during the
    next decade (2011-2015). An eighth Wasp-class amphibious assault ship
    is under construction and will replace one Tarawa-class ship during
    fiscal year 2007. In order to meet future warfighting requirements and
    fully capitalize on our investment in the MV-22 and Joint Strike
    Fighter, ships with enhanced aviation capabilities will replace the
    remaining LHA ships. These ships will provide increased jet fuel
    storage and aviation ordnance magazines, and an enhanced hanger to
    support aviation maintenance. The first ship, designated LHA 6, is a
    transitional ship to the succeeding ships in the class that will be
    transformational in capability and design. This lead ship is on track
    for a detailed design and construction contract award in fiscal year
    2007 with advanced procurement funds provided in the fiscal year 2005
    and 2006 budgets.
        Maritime Prepositioning Force.--Our proven maritime prepositioning
    force--capable of supporting the rapid deployment of three Marine
    Expeditionary Brigades (MEBs)--is an important complement to this
    amphibious capability. Combined, these capabilities enable the Marine
    Corps to rapidly react to a crisis in a number of potential theaters
    and the flexibility to employ forces across the battlespace.
        Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future).--In addition to the 30
    operationally available amphibious ships needed to employ a MEF during
    a forcible entry operation, the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future)
    (MPF(F)) is the key enabler for Seabasing, providing support and
    sustainment for early entry Marine Expeditionary Brigades. MPF(F)
    enables four new capabilities: (1) at-sea arrival and assembly of the
    Sea Base echelon of the MEB; (2) projection of one surface and one
    vertically delivered battalion landing team in one 8-10 hour period of
    darkness; (3) long-term, sea-based sustainment; and (4) at-sea
    reconstitution and redeployment. These capabilities will be invaluable
    in supporting joint forcible entry operations, forward engagement,
    presence, and relationship building operations with allies and
    potential coalition partners by our forward deployed forces, as well as
    support of disaster relief and humanitarian operations. Additionally,
    this flexible asset can remain in support of post-conflict activities
    and forces ashore from a relatively secure location at sea. Each future
    Maritime Prepositioning Squadron will include one LHD, two LHA(R),
    three cargo and ammunition ships (T-AKE), three fast logistics ships
    (T-AKR), three Mobile Loading Platform ships, and two legacy maritime
    prepositioning ships. This mix of ships will be capable of
    prepositioning critical equipment and 20 days of supplies for our
    future MEB.
    High Speed Connectors
        High-speed connectors will facilitate the conduct of sustained sea-
    based operations by expediting force closure and allowing the
    persistence necessary for success in the littorals. Connectors are
    grouped into three categories: inter-theater, intra-theater, and sea
    base to shore. These platforms will link bases and stations around the
    world to the sea base and other advanced bases, as well as provide
    linkages between the sea base and forces operating ashore. High-speed
    connectors are critical to provide the force closure and operational
    flexibility to make Seabasing a reality.
        Joint High Speed Sealift.--The Joint High Speed Sealift (JHSS) is
    an inter-theater connector that provides strategic force closure for
    CONUS-based forces. The JHSS is envisioned to transport the Marine
    Corps' non self-deploying aircraft, personnel, and high demand-low
    density equipment, as well as the Army's non self-deploying aircraft
    and personnel, and Brigade Combat Team rolling stock and personnel,
    permitting rapid force closure of this equipment. Additionally, the
    JHSS will alleviate the need to compete for limited strategic airlift
    assets, and reduce closure timelines by deploying directly to the sea
    base rather than via an intermediate staging base or advanced base. The
    JHSS program is currently in the early states of capability development
    and has merged with the Army's Austere Access High Speed Ship program.
    Current fielding of the JHSS is projected in fiscal year 2017.
        Joint High Speed Vessel.--The Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) will
    address the Combatant Commanders' requirements for a forward deployed
    rapid force closure capability to support the Global War on Terror. The
    JHSV will enable the rapid force closure of fly-in Marine forces to the
    sea base from advanced bases, logistics from pre-positioned ships to
    assault shipping, ship-to-ship replenishment, and in appropriate threat
    environments, maneuver of assault forces to in-theater ports and
    austere ports. Army and Navy programs were recently merged into a Navy-
    led program office with an acquisition strategy intended to leverage
    current commercial fast ferry technology, and acquisition of a modified
    non-developmental item (NDI). Contract award for new vessels is
    expected in fiscal year 2008, with delivery in 2010. To meet the
    current and near-term Combatant Commanders' requirements, the
    Department of the Navy continues to lease foreign built vessels until
    the JHSV is delivered.
        WESTPAC EXPRESS (WPE) is providing support to III MEF and other
    Okinawa-based forces, enabling III MEF to expand off-island training
    and engagement while reducing battalion-training days spent off island.
    Additionally, WPE played a key role supporting the Indian Ocean tsunami
    relief effort. HSC-2 ``SWIFT'' (picture below) provides a test bed for
    research and development prototypes as well as an operational platform
    in support of current real world requirements. Most recently, HSC-2
    played a key role in support of JTF Katrina, providing high-speed
    delivery of supplies, equipment, and personnel to ships and ports along
    the U.S. Gulf Coast.

                                 HSV 2 (SWIFT)

        Joint Maritime Assault Connector.--The Joint Maritime Assault
    Connector (JMAC), previously known as the sea base to shore connector,
    will replace the venerable legacy landing craft air cushion (LCAC) as a
    critical tactical level platform supporting Marine Corps assault
    forces, as well as joint forces operating within the Sea Base. In
    comparison to the LCAC, the JMAC is envisioned to have many enhanced
    capabilities, such as the ability to operate in higher sea states,
    increased range, speed, and payload, increased obstacle clearance, and
    reduced operating and maintenance costs. The JMAC is planned for fleet
    introduction in fiscal year 2015.
    Aviation Transformation
        Marine aviation will undergo significant transformation over the
    next ten years as we transition from 13 types of legacy aircraft to
    seven new platforms. We developed a new transition strategy to better
    balance numbers of assault support and TacAir aircraft based on
    operational requirements. This strategy supports our Seabasing concept
    and enables Ship-to-Objective Maneuver utilizing the Joint Strike
    Fighter, MV-22, and Heavy Lift Replacement, recently designated CH-53K.
    At a distance of 110 nautical miles, a squadron of MV-22s will lift a
    975 Marine battalion in four waves in under four hours. Similarly, the
    CH-53K will replace our aging, legacy CH-53E helicopter, lifting more
    than twice as much over the same range and serving as the only sea-
    based air assault and logistics connector capable of transporting
    critical heavy vehicles and fire support assets. An Assault Support
    Capability Analysis is underway to determine the optimal mix of MV-22
    and CH-53K aircraft required to support Ship-to-Objective Maneuver and
    Distributed Operations. Similarly, the Short Takeoff and Vertical
    Landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter represents a
    transformational platform that will generate 25 percent more sorties
    and provide a multi-spectral engagement capability for the
    Expeditionary Strike Force.
    Ship-to-Shore Mobility
        CH-53K.--The CH-53K is our number one aviation acquisition
    priority. Consequently, the CH-53K received full funding in 2005 and
    has reached ``Milestone B'' status--initiation of system development
    and demonstrations. Our current fleet of CH-53E Super Stallion aircraft
    enters its fatigue life during this decade. The CH-53K will deliver
    increased range and payload, reduced operations and support costs,
    increased commonality with other assault support platforms, and digital
    interoperability for the next 25 years (Figure 3).

                                    Figure 3

        The CH-53K program will both improve operational capabilities and
    reduce life-cycle costs. Commonality between other Marine Corps
    aircraft in terms of engines and avionics will greatly enhance the
    maintainability and deployability of the aircraft within the Air Combat
    Element. The CH-53K will vastly improve the ability of the MAGTF and
    Joint force to project and sustain forces ashore from a sea-based
    center of operations in support of EMW, Ship-to-Objective Maneuver, and
    Distributed Operations.
        Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.--The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
    (EFV) is our number one ground acquisition program, and it replaces the
    aging Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) that has been in service since
    1972. It will provide Marine surface assault elements with better
    operational and tactical mobility both in the water and ashore, and
    will exploit fleeting opportunities in the fluid operational
    environment of the future. Designed to launch from amphibious ships
    stationed over the horizon, it will be capable of carrying a reinforced
    Marine rifle squad. The EFV will travel at speeds in excess of 20
    nautical miles per hour in a wave height of three feet. This capability
    will reduce the vulnerability of our naval forces to enemy threats at
    sea and ashore. Our surface assault forces mounted in EFVs will have
    the mobility to react and exploit gaps in enemy defenses ashore. Once
    ashore, EFV will provide Marines with an armored personnel carrier
    designed to meet the threats of the future. The EFV has high-speed land
    and water maneuverability, highly lethal day/night fighting ability,
    and enhanced communications capability. It has advanced armor and
    nuclear, biological, and chemical collective protection. These
    attributes will significantly enhance the lethality and survivability
    of Marine maneuver units.
    Supporting Capabilities
        Logistics Modernization.--Logistics Modernization is the largest
    coordinated and cross-organizational transformation effort ever
    undertaken within Marine Corps logistics. It is a Marine Corps-wide,
    multi-year, three-pronged improvement and integration initiative
    focusing on Marine Corps people, processes and technology dimensions.
    This will produce a far more effective and efficient Logistics Chain
    Management process to include: supply, maintenance, and distribution
    processes, integration of emerging information technology, and the
    introduction of new occupational specialties to support these
    advancements.
        Global Combat Support System--Marine Corps.--Global Combat Support
    System--Marine Corps (GCSS--MC) is the Marine Corps' member of the
    overarching Global Combat Support System Family of Systems as
    designated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and the Global
    Combat Support System General Officer Steering Committee. GCSS--MC is
    designed to provide logistics information technology capabilities to
    satisfy the Marine Air Ground Task Force and Combatant Commander/Joint
    Task Force requirements, as well as support the Marine Corps Logistics
    Modernization strategy. The goal of GCSS--MC is to provide modern,
    deployable Information Technology tools for both supported and
    supporting units. Achieving this goal requires the establishment of a
    shared data environment so that GCSS--MC data and information may be
    shared across the Marine Corps enterprise and with other services and
    agencies. GCSS--MC is being implemented in phases, or ``blocks''. Block
    1 provides logistics chain management and basic planning tools, while
    Blocks 2 and 3 will see the expansion of Block 1 capabilities and
    provide major upgrades to the Oracle software. The focus will be on
    logistics planning, command and control, and asset visibility.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Your Marines are fully dedicated to serving and protecting this
    Nation. Their bravery, sacrifice, and commitment to warfighting
    excellence have added new chapters to our Corps' rich legacy. We
    recognize we have an essential mission, and that we have the solid
    backing of the American people. The Marine Corps fully understands that
    our greatest contribution to the Nation is our high-level of readiness
    across the spectrum of conflict. That readiness is predicated upon your
    sustained support, for without it your Marines will not enter the
    coming battles as the well-equipped, well-led, and well-trained
    fighting force you have come to expect. We face the unprecedented
    reality of overlapping and competing fiscal priorities--resetting the
    force from an extended war while undertaking a comprehensive
    modernization plan to prepare for the challenges of tomorrow. Marines
    and their families greatly appreciate the unwavering support of
    Congress, which is material to achieving our high level of success and
    securing the Nation's interests.

                       NAVY EXPEDITIONARY COMBAT COMMAND

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Let me
    start out with you Mr. Secretary. And unless there are
    objections, we'll have a 10 minute round for each Senator.
        There's funding requested for the Navy Expeditionary Combat
    Command in the 2006 supplemental, but there's no money in the
    2007 budget. Can you tell us why? What is the strategy? This is
    for you Mr. Secretary. I think it is a basic question of the
    Secretary and Admiral Mullen, too, this is a strange
    circumstance. Why should we put money in the supplemental if
    it's not going to be funded in the 2007 budget?
        Mr. Winter. Admiral, could you help on this one?
        Admiral Mullen. Mr. Chairman, I'll have to get back to you.
    I'm not aware that it is not funded in the 2007 budget.
        Senator Stevens. That's my information, I could be wrong.
        Admiral Mullen. My understanding was we had money in that.
    The idea in the 2006 supplemental was to get it moving as
    rapidly as possible and we started to fund it in 2007.
        Senator Stevens. All right. Thank you very much.
        [The information follows:]

        The Navy requested funding in the DON fiscal year 2006 Emergency
    Wartime Supplemental submission for the Riverine Force ($73.1 million);
    the Maritime Civil Affairs Group ($6.4 million); the Expeditionary
    Training Team ($2.5 million); the Maritime Security Force ($6.5
    million); Inshore Boat Units, which are components of the Naval Coastal
    Warfare community ($16.5 million); and the NECC Headquarters ($2.5
    million). The primary rationale for the funding requested in the fiscal
    year 2006 supplemental for the new components of the NECC is that the
    final decision to establish the NECC and the aforementioned components
    was not made until after the submission of the regular fiscal year 2007
    budget.
        The following summarizes all of the efforts currently in motion and
    planned to fund the Riverine Force (Riverine Group ONE [headquarters]
    and three deployable Riverine Squadrons) in the OPN, WPN, OMN and PANMC
    appropriations. The first Squadron-level operational deployment to the
    U.S. Central Command Area of Responsibility is scheduled for March
    2007. Principal rationale behind requesting procurement funding on an
    accelerated timeline is due to the relatively long delivery projections
    for much of the equipment required by the deploying Riverine Squadrons
    (in many cases delivery forecasts are 12 months or longer, subsequent
    to contract/contract option award).
      --Fiscal Year 2006 Below Threshold Reprogramming.--$7.47 million to
            begin equipping Riverine Squadron ONE (RIVRON ONE). Fleet
            Forces Command is also providing OMN funding from existing
            resources in fiscal year 2006 to support the establishment of
            RIVRON ONE and the Riverine Group ONE headquarters on an
            accelerated timeline.
      --Fiscal Year 2006 Above Threshold Reprogramming.--$17.34 million to
            continue equipping RIVRON ONE, less combatant craft, which the
            Marine Corps will ``loan'' RIVRON ONE for initial training and
            the March 2007 deployment. With one exception, funding will
            ``pay back'' other Navy programs from which required equipment
            for RIVRON ONE is being redirected.
      --Fiscal Year 2006 DON Emergency Wartime Supplemental Request.--$73.1
            million to equip RIVRONs TWO and THREE, commands scheduled to
            sustain the aforementioned initial operational deployment in
            November 2007 and July 2008, respectively.
      --Fiscal Year 2007 President's Budget.--$22.31 million initially
            intended to begin establishment of one modestly sized riverine
            unit. This baseline concept was superceded by a more robust
            Riverine Force concept subsequent to submission of the PRESBUD.
            Currently, fiscal year 2007 funding would be used to sustain
            the Force being stood up in fiscal year 2006.

                           SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

        Senator Stevens. Secretary Winter, in the Quadrennial
    Defense Review there was significant emphasis on increasing the
    Special Forces Operations capabilities including Navy SEALs,
    and additional naval personnel to train foreign units, and a
    new Marine Corps Special Operations component. Will those
    activities require an increase in the Navy's end strength in
    2007?
        Mr. Winter. Sir, I believe that the end strength
    considerations associated with the Navy and the Navy SEALs have
    been factored into the proposed end strength into 2007 of
    340,700 for the active component and that includes, to my
    understanding, the factoring in of the additional SEALs that
    are required.
        Senator Stevens. General Hagee, this new Marine Corps
    Special Operations component, will it be under the control of
    the Special Operations Command or under your control?
        General Hagee. Sir, from an operational standpoint, of
    course it's under the control of the Combatant Commander or
    Special Operations Commander General Brown. I am responsible
    for the training, equipping of traditional types of equipment,
    not the Special Operations equipment and the training of those
    marines before they go down there, like we are for any
    Combatant Commander, sir.
        Senator Stevens. And Admiral Mullen, it is my information
    that this is going to require an increased level of Navy SEAL
    team force levels. Are you going to be able to do that type of
    specific recruiting to meet the Navy SEALs without sacrificing
    the level of training for the Command as a whole?
        I'm looking at this QDR and my staff has looked at it and
    compared it to the budgets. Have we got the funding in this
    budget to meet the goals of the Quadrennial Defense Review?
        Admiral Mullen. We initiated the funding in the 2007
    budget, but we clearly don't have it. I mean, we've got
    additional work to generate both the funding, and refine the
    steps, and the program builds from 2008 on out--2007 was the
    beginning.
        As far as the SEALs, Mr. Chairman, our concern they are--as
    the Secretary said--they are taking into consideration their
    end strength increase is taken into consideration in the
    overall decrease of the Navy's end strength.
        That said, last year for example, we graduated about 170 or
    175 SEALs from basic underwater demolition school (BUDS) and we
    need to generate the kind of numbers we're talking about in the
    future. We need to get that number up above 200.
        We have taken some steps both at the recruiting and in boot
    camp to ensure that those who are desirous of going are better
    prepared. We're working pretty hard in terms of making sure
    those who want to do this and are qualified can get through the
    training. But in no way, shape, or form is there any intent to
    decrease the quality.

                               MENTAL HEALTH CARE

        Senator Stevens. Let me ask two more questions. One is, we
    know there's going to be an amendment offered to the
    supplemental that Chairman Cochran is managing dealing with
    additional funds for the Veterans Administration and for the
    Department to meet the mental health concerns.
        Researchers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center surveying
    soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines found that 19 percent
    reported mental health concerns. Now that's potentially a large
    problem not only for the Armed Forces, but for the veterans
    health care system.
        Are you adequately funded in the 2007 bill to meet that, or
    do we need to add money that we're going to be asked to add for
    the care of these veterans?
        Mr. Secretary, have you discussed this?
        Mr. Winter. Sir, I've not discussed this at this level of
    detail. CNO, do you have a view on this?
        Admiral Mullen. Mr. Chairman, I would really have to get
    back to you on whether we're adequately funded. I will say that
    from the Navy's perspective, this is an issue we are aware of
    and we are working literally from the field back into the
    hospitals and back into the support mechanisms, that we have--
    not just in the hospitals, but also at our fleet and family
    support centers. That is something we are very much aware of.
        The adequacy of the funding to support that, I would just
    have to--I'm comfortable we can do that in the near term.
    Whether we've got it laid in for the long term, I just don't
    know. I would have to get back to you on it.
        [The information follows:]

        Navy Medicine can and will continue to meet the demand for
    mental health services required by our fighting Marines and
    Sailors. We have identified the need for an additional $11.4
    million in the 2006 GWOT supplemental to support the Post
    Deployment Health Re-Assessment (PDHRA) of returning Sailors
    and Marines, active and reserve component. If Congress passes
    this supplemental request and our current fiscal year 2007
    budget request we will have adequate funding for this
    initiative and for our mental health requirements throughout
    fiscal year 2007.

        Senator Stevens. Well I have to tell you, we don't have
    long term. We're going to have to face this very soon when we
    get back. Chairman Cochran can maybe tell us when.
        That's one of the issues that worries me a little--the
    amendment to add substantial monies to the supplement for the
    mental health care. So I hope you can get back to us as soon as
    possible.

                                     MV-22

        General Hagee, about the problems of additional funds for
    V-22 aircraft as replacement for the CH-46. That money is not
    in the supplemental that was forwarded to us. And it's my
    understanding that this is really a problem. I sent you a
    letter, and you responded to it, and I thank you for that. Have
    you discussed this with the Department and should we consider
    increasing the 2006 level--I mean the 2007 level, to meet these
    V-22 requirements?
        General Hagee. Sir, we have. As you know, we've identified
    the MV-22 to replace those four 46s we have lost. We put that
    in the supplemental. It was deferred to next year--to 2007, if
    in fact we have those funds. We could have executed in 2006,
    but if we get the funds in 2007 we can execute in 2007.
        If you ask me, what I would prefer to do? I would prefer to
    execute it in 2006, but I also understand the fiscal
    environment in which we are in.
        Senator Stevens. You didn't get any money out of the so-
    called bridge funds for 2006 for the V-22?
        General Hagee. Not for aircraft replacement. No, sir.
        Senator Stevens. What's the timing as far as the rate of
    production now? Is it declining?
        General Hagee. No, sir. In fact, as you know, it went
    through a successful Defense Acquisition Board. The rate that
    we had planned a couple of years ago, has in fact been reduced.
    But we're going to produce 9 this year and the plan is to
    produce 14 next year.
        Senator Stevens. These are actually going to be used to
    replace equipment that was lost or destroyed in the war zones
    of Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
        General Hagee. Yes, sir. Any 46--and we have lost four of
    those so far, or any CH-53 Delta will be replaced by a MV-22.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Senator Inouye.

                                 STEAMING DAYS

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, traditionally for the past
    several years, the Navy has had about 51 steaming days per
    quarter. Add to this the fact that announcements have been made
    indicating your intention to increase Navy presence in the
    Pacific, which would increase steaming days.
        Taking these two things into consideration, don't you think
    that a budget request, requesting 36 steaming days in a quarter
    is taking a huge risk?
        Mr. Winter. Sir, there clearly is a risk assumption
    associated with that. I will note however, that we have
    ensured, taking the proper steps to be sure that the pre-
    deployment, the readiness part of the steaming, the operations
    and maintenance are funded at the full level to ensure that
    we're able to maintain the readiness of the fleet, relative to
    the operational deployment. This is a matter we're going to
    have to track very carefully in terms of the ongoing
    activities, as well as the conduct of phase zero activities
    that may be dealt with outside of the area of responsibility
    (AOR). It is a matter we're going to continue to track and we
    will watch very closely.
        CNO, if you want to add to that.
        Admiral Mullen. Senator, clearly it's a calculated risk. We
    have funded the surge capability from both a training and a
    readiness standpoint in order to be able to deploy and meet
    requirements.
        These are deployed steaming days which would move from 51
    to 36 and we have been at 51 steaming days for a significantly
    long period of time. It is something I have no desire to return
    to, what I call the readiness bathtub, that we've filled in
    recent years, and that we will watch this very carefully. And
    if we have to, we'll have to move money around in order to fund
    it to meet the need for the steaming days deployed.
        The deployed days are going to be the same. In other words,
    the ships will still be overseas deployed. It's a question of
    managing that risk. I actually expect to get some of that
    returned. Some of those steaming days have, over the last
    couple of years, been tied to supplemental funds. I'm not
    looking for that, but that has happened in the last couple of
    years. So it is an account we just have to manage very, very
    carefully.
        Senator Inouye. So as far as you're concerned, it is a risk
    that you can live with?
        Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir. At this point in time, it is.
        Senator Inouye. What about the 2 percent increase in
    deferred maintenance?
        Admiral Mullen. Again, that is relatively small at this
    particular point in time. I'm anxious to not return to a large
    amount of deferred maintenance and we'll watch this. I actually
    have some deferred in 2006, as well as in 2007 and I have no
    desire to return to where we were before and have to watch it
    literally maintenance availability by maintenance availability
    to ensure that we don't return to that. And I may have to move
    resources around to do that, but we are.
        The other thing we've done, Senator, is we've worked hard
    to do maintenance differently than we have in the past and to
    operate much more efficiently than we have in the past, and
    we've put an extraordinary amount of money in readiness in the
    last several years, and I'm anxious to keep pressure on those
    accounts to make sure we're spending effectively, as well as
    efficiently.

                           MARINE CORPS END STRENGTH

        Senator Inouye. General Hagee, you're now operating at an
    end strength of 179,000 marines, with the hope of reaching
    181,000 by the end of this fiscal year. In addition, as the
    chairman noted, you're going to have 2,600 assigned to special
    operations.
        In your professional military judgment, what level of end
    strength is required to fulfill the current and future missions
    of your Corps? And I say this because, recently in a statement
    you said 180,000 is about right.
        General Hagee. Sir, thank you for that question. You are
    right. We are currently authorized today 179,000. The program
    budget pays for 175,000. The additional marines authorized by
    the Congress are funded by the supplemental. In addition as you
    know, the title 10 allows us to go about 3 percent above our
    authorized level during times of war. And so, we're at about
    180,000 marines right now.
        I believe based on the current operational tempo and
    training tempo that that is about right for us right now. The
    last review that we had on structuring the Marine Corps was in
    2003 and several things have changed since that time.
        You've mentioned that we have stood up the Marine Special
    Operations Command. There's a significant review of our major
    war plans that are undergoing, as I said, review. And we're
    also--the QDR report came out, which is shifting it from--re-
    balancing probably is a better word--from traditional to
    irregular and so, in order to look at all of that, I have stood
    up a capabilities assessment group.
        It's been going for just over about 1\1/2\ weeks. It is
    headed by Major General Steve Johnson who just returned from
    Iraq, and they're going to report out late spring--early summer
    on what the Marine Corps should look like from a structure
    standpoint and the end strength to support that both now and
    into the future.
        I would like to comment, if I could, just a little bit on
    Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC). There are 2,600
    marines that will ultimately end up underneath SOCOM. Three
    major muscle movements. One of them is a foreign military
    training unit which we stood up last year in the Marine Corps
    and we're going to move that to SOCOM.
        It's where it should be. It's for an internal defense. We
    will not reconstitute that inside the Marine Corps. We're going
    to take our Maritime Special Purpose Force which currently
    trains up with the Marine Expeditionary Unit, goes out with the
    Marine Expeditionary Unit, and operates with them. We're going
    to take that force and transfer that to SOCOM. They are still
    going to train up with and deploy with the Marine Expeditionary
    Unit.
        However in theatre, they will be under the operational
    control of the Theatre Special Operations Commander. We will
    not reconstitute that force. We're going and the final
    capability set, we're going to give to SOCOM, are some signals
    intelligence (SIGINT) capability, fire support coordination
    capability, intelligence (INTEL) capability. Those capabilities
    we will have to reconstitute inside the Marine Corps.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. Admiral, although you
    seem to be meeting overall recruitment goals, we note with some
    concern your problems with recruiting women and minorities. And
    second, doctors and nurses, the SEALs, and lower re-enlistments
    in the first quarter of the fiscal year.
        If there is anything that you feel that this subcommittee
    can do to help you in this matter, because I think we've got to
    meet our goals, I hope you will let us know.
        Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir. Overall from a recruiting
    standpoint and both the recruiting and a retention level, we
    are meeting our goals. We've had extraordinary retention for
    the last--since really--since 2000 and the retention numbers
    even this year are very good. As is our recruiting, there are
    some aches on the Reserve side for Seabees and medical where we
    have not met our goals for a significant period of time and
    we're anxious to get that incentivized correctly.
        And we're working on that as well from the diversity aspect
    of it. It's a priority for me as a chief to make sure we have
    this right. Our overall balance in the force is really pretty
    good, with the exception of senior flag officers in both women
    and minorities in terms of percentages.
        That's a priority for me to get right in the future and to
    do that, I need to certainly do that at the base so that we
    have, many years from now, an opportunity. There are
    opportunities to make sure that we reflect this country. It is
    a very important issue for me and one that I pay a lot of
    personal attention to. And so I appreciate your offer. And if
    there is, I certainly will let you know.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Admiral. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cochran.

                              SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank
    you for being here, Mr. Secretary, General Hagee, Admiral
    Mullen, to discuss the budget request for the Navy and Marine
    Corps for the next fiscal year. The supplemental has provided
    part of the request that the Navy and Marine Corps says it
    needs to repair and replace equipment and other items in your
    inventory.
        I wonder, taking the supplemental request and looking at
    the request for this next fiscal year, do you think, Mr.
    Secretary, that you have enough funds to carry out the missions
    you expect the Navy and Marine Corps to be required to carry
    out?
        Mr. Winter. Senator, within the ground rules we've been
    given, which is to say that the incremental cost of operations
    associated with the conflict to be included in the supplemental
    and not into the base budget, we do believe that we have
    adequately provided for the needs of the Navy and Marine Corps
    for the next year.
        Senator Cochran. General Hagee, the Marine Corps is asking
    in the supplemental for approximately $3.2 billion to repair or
    replace ground vehicles, Humvees, and other equipment that has
    been damaged or lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. How will you deal
    with the remaining unfunded requirements in ground equipment to
    complete for example, resetting the aviation assets that have
    been depleted.
        General Hagee. Sir, thank you for that question. What we
    did is, last year we drew a line and we looked at October 1,
    2005, and we said, what will it cost to reset the Marine Corps
    as of October 1, 2005? And we came up with $11.7 billion.
        If we had that and the industrial base could execute it, we
    would be just where we should be as far as capabilities and
    capacities in the Marine Corps. And that's what we have called
    our reset and we submitted that as part of the supplemental. We
    got a portion of that for 2006. The rest that's over here is a
    recommendation for 2006. The rest is then deferred to 2007.
        We could not, even if we got the $11.7 billion, we couldn't
    execute it in 2006. Industry could not execute it in 2006. We
    believe we could execute about $6 billion of that. I think $5.1
    billion in 2006 and the balance is in 2007.
        Then there's a cost of war. And the cost of war for 2006,
    as I mentioned in my opening statement, is about $5.3 billion.
    And as long as the war goes on that will continue if we get
    that funding, then there will not be another requirement for a
    reset once we obligate and execute those $11.7 billion.

                               SHIPBUILDING PLAN

        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. Admiral Mullen,
    looking at the long-range ship building plan for the Navy, we
    had the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, as you know, that struck
    the gulf coast of our State and we have a major ship building
    firm located in the Pascagoula area. What impact is that going
    to have on your requirements, or the budget submission that you
    have presented for Navy ship building?
        Admiral Mullen. The long-range ship building plan in great
    part depends on the shipyard. Actually all of our shipyards,
    but certainly the shipyard in Mississippi as well. And so
    clearly as I've structured the long-range ship building plan,
    put the plan, submitted it to you this year. My goal is to
    create a strategic alliance between the Hill, the Navy, the
    Department, and industry. And a viable industry is a very
    important aspect of this.
        What I'm trying to do is submit a plan that is stabilized,
    doesn't change year to year, so that industry can make
    investments to deliver ships which we can control their cost.
    And all of us have work to do in that area.
        So the viability of that shipyard is very key in terms of
    the future of building the ship plan for the Navy and for the
    Nation.

                             LPD-17 AMPHIBIOUS SHIP

        Senator Cochran. One of the responsibilities there at that
    yard, I understand includes the LPD-17 amphibious ship. We
    appreciate the fact that that's an important part of our
    State's economy and we're very proud of the good work that has
    been done there. Particularly, in mobilizing a workforce that
    have been dispersed and preoccupied with just trying to stay
    alive and keep families together in the aftermath of that
    hurricane. But I think they seem to be back working. I think I
    heard 12,000 employees available and dependable for work every
    day there.
        I noticed the fiscal year 2006 submissions, Mr. Secretary,
    shows that the ship plan for fiscal year 2007 has been pushed
    into 2008. But it is also listed as part of the Navy's unfunded
    requirements list.
        So I'm wondering, it would seem that it would be
    appropriate to fund something that is on the unfunded
    requirements list, rather than push it into the next fiscal
    year. What is the problem?
        Mr. Winter. Well sir, that was a move that was made
    recognizing that by dealing with the advanced procurement, we
    were able to actually buy the last of those Amphibious
    Transport Docks (LPD), in I believe the 2008 time period,
    without impacting the actual delivery of that particular ship.
        At the same time obviously, if we could pay for that
    earlier, it would provide additional headroom in the out-years.
    This is something we clearly want to do. It is a matter of
    providing an appropriate allocation of the resources in the
    time period we're discussing.
        Senator Cochran. General Hagee, I remember last year we
    talked about how many amphibious ships the Marine Corps needed
    and how many would you like to have to support Marine Corps
    operations. I believe you said you would like to have 10 LPD-
    17s. Is this still something that you think would be helpful
    and satisfy the Marine Corp's strategic lift requirements?
        General Hagee. Sir, you know I'm an infantry man, you never
    have enough information and I'm a marine, you never have enough
    amphibious shipping. I would love to have 10 LPDs. I understand
    the fiscal environment that we are in. I think there's--as I
    testified last year, there's a risk with nine. But that's a
    risk that I believe that we can take.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you all for your cooperation and your great performance of
    duty.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator. Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    welcome all of you to this hearing this morning.

                       MARINE CORPS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT

        General Hagee, could you give me an assessment right now on
    replacement equipment and modernization of equipment? I know it
    changes everyday and our losses, could you give me kind of
    assessment of how we're replacing, and how we're modernizing?
        General Hagee. Yes, sir. Probably the best example is with
    our maritime pre-positioning squadrons. As you know, we have
    three of those squadrons. Each one of the squadrons has the
    ground equipment and the sustainment for a brigade of 15,000
    marines--a lot of equipment.
        Last year at this time, two of those squadrons were down
    below 35 percent availability of equipment because it was gone
    and it was in Iraq. Because of the support that we have
    received on supplemental funding, today two of those squadrons
    are just about at 100 percent and the one remaining squadron is
    up around 90 percent. The equipment is actually on order. The
    money has been obligated, we're just waiting for it to come in.
    So the supplemental funding has improved our readiness
    significantly.
        The CNO talked about the bathtub. We used a lot of
    equipment. As you know, the rules said in the first 2 years of
    supplementals, we could not use it or at least, not very much
    of it for procurement. Last year we were able to do that and
    we're starting to fill that bathtub up.

                              MARINE CORPS RESERVE

        Senator Burns. Tell me about your Reserves and the
    equipping of the Reserves, and are they ready for deployment
    should they be needed?
        General Hagee. I've been in the Marine Corps for 38 years.
    I've never seen a more ready, battle hardened Marine Corps than
    we have today, both regular and Reserve. Ninety-seven percent
    of our selected Marine Corps Reserve units have been activated.
    And over 70 percent of those individuals who have been
    activated have in fact, served in either Iraq and Afghanistan.
    They are ready to deploy.
        Now we have taken equipment and we have pushed it to Iraq,
    and we have pushed it to Afghanistan--exactly where it is
    needed. They have sufficient equipment back here to train. If
    we had to mobilize all of them, we would have to draw down our
    preposition stocks again.
        Senator Burns. When you deploy your Reserves, when you call
    your Reserves up, are they blended into regular units or are
    they a unit unto themselves?
        General Hagee. They are a unit unto themselves, sir. If
    they're called up as an infantry battalion or an artillery
    battalion, in some cases if we call a debt or a detachment, it
    could in fact blend into another unit.
        Senator Burns. That's the reason I asked those questions,
    is because of I can see a depletion of those Reserve units not
    having the necessary equipment to actually be combat ready
    whenever they are called up.
        In other words, do they have to be retooled or does new
    equipment have to be issued? Because I know there's been a draw
    down in the equipment at the Reserve level.
        General Hagee. Yes, sir. That is correct and I say,
    especially for the major end items for the personal gear we're
    fine. On the major end items, we would have to take some of
    those out of pre-positioned stocks, if in fact we called up
    everyone.

                            MARINE CORPS RECRUITMENT

        Senator Burns. Your recruitment--tell me how your
    recruiting is going. Now I know you're going to send some of
    your personnel into Special Ops, do you plan to replace those
    numbers back into your regular ranks?
        General Hagee. We won't replace all of the capabilities in
    the regular ranks. The classic example is the Foreign Military
    Training Unit which we stood up in the Marine Corps last year.
    It's about 400 marines. It's a capability that the Nation will
    continue to have, but it will be under SOCOM. We will not
    reconstitute that under the Marine Corps.

                             MARINE CORPS TRAINING

        Senator Burns. I appreciate that because I'm mostly
    concerned you know, from my background. I'm concerned about the
    people on the ground and in your training. I don't think the
    American people really understand how 9/11 changed our lives
    and how we look at the world now at a different kind of an
    enemy than we did, say in the cold war era, or in the past.
        You're training, especially boot camp. Now I know at one
    time that Marine Corps Recruiting Depot (MCRD) San Diego was
    talked about to go on the base realignment and closure (BRAC)
    and move all boot camp and primary training to boot training to
    Parris Island. I understand now, that you need both units in
    your operation now, is that correct?
        General Hagee. That is correct, sir.
        Senator Burns. And when I talk about training now, it takes
    on a different kind of training. In other words, the psychology
    of training has not changed in the Marine Corps. I congratulate
    you for that, but also, to deal with an enemy that we've never
    been able, or never ever seen before. And I'm wondering if the
    wing of the hearts and minds of wherever we travel is now a
    part of your boot camp training, or is a part of your Infantry
    Training Regiment (ITR).
        General Hagee. It's a part of our--what we call now, our
    school of infantry which was the old ITR. It is absolutely a
    part of that, sir, and as I mentioned in my opening statement--
    --
        Senator Burns. I hated to date myself.
        General Hagee [continuing]. The same thing, the same tough
    hard training. Where we have made the most significant change
    is in Twentynine Palms. As you know, we use to do the combined
    arms exercise out there, which is an industrial war type of
    exercise, coordinating artillery, and aircraft fires. We have
    changed that to where it is in a regular battlefield now.
        We have a couple of mock Arab villages--really quite large.
    We have role players that are actually Iraqi's speaking Arabic,
    that populate these villages when we're doing training out
    there. The marines learn how to interact with them, how to deal
    with IEDs. So we have significantly changed the training that a
    unit experiences before it goes over.
        Senator Burns. Well I'm one of these and due to the
    leadership of our chairman and ranking member on this
    subcommittee for their vision and insight, because I still
    believe our success around the world, the best Ambassadors we
    have is the warrior that is on the ground and their ability to
    deal with the people that they run into, new cultures, new
    languages, new everything.
        And being able and having the versatility as a person, as
    an individual, to deal with those changes. And so I
    congratulate you on that and I just know that the young people
    that we encounter when we're in the service and we're abroad,
    the effect that we have on them is the future of this country.
    Because the impressions our warriors make on them, will last
    them for a lifetime and that is winning the hearts of the
    future and I congratulate you on that also and I yield back my
    time.

                        SERVICE MEMBERS' ABSENTEE VOTES

        Oh, there's one other question. We're concerned a little
    bit about it's an election year and I'm up. But new ways of
    making sure that our men and women can vote absentee, we've
    been looking at different systems in our office and have been
    in contact with your offices.
        I wish you would take a look at that for us, and to make
    sure that our men and women who serve in uniform, especially
    abroad, do not lose their voice in Government. And we've been
    working on that and I would hope that you would visit with us
    just a little bit in our offices, because there's a couple of
    plans out there that we think could facilitate and to make sure
    that they do not lose their voice in their government. Because
    I think it is very important and I thank the chairman and I
    yield my time.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Pardon us, we're
    discussing another subcommittee's ability to meet this
    afternoon. We have a series of votes.

                       UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLE (UCAV)

        Admiral, during the coming recess we're going to go out and
    take a look at the predator development ground out in Nevada
    and we understand you're thinking about developing unmanned
    combat aircraft now, and the Defense Advance Research Projects
    Agency (DARPA) has been involved in the whole subject in the
    past.
        You're requesting $239 million in fiscal 2007 and tell us,
    between 2007 and 2011 that this unmanned combat air vehicle
    will request funds in excess of $1.8 billion. Now are you
    satisfied that this is right for the Navy to separate off from
    the joint program that's been going on in the past?
        We've had a joint program for unmanned combat aircraft for
    all the services and now, it looks like you're going to go it
    alone, tell us why?
        Admiral Mullen. Sir, the intention is not to go it alone.
    It was really to take what was the joint program, move this
    $1.8 billion to focus on the unmanned carrier suitability piece
    of this which was also part of that joint program. But it was
    not as clean a part per se.
        Both General Mosley and I are very committed to the joint
    outcome of this--of what was going on in this joint program.
    General Mosley and his--also has a significant portion of that
    money. I believe the other half of what was almost a $4 billion
    program across the time line you described and we have pledged
    to each other, to ensure that as this evolves we share the
    technologies and the developments, and down the road come back
    together.
        So I have great confidence in that for us, the unmanned
    piece, as I've said, is the carrier piece. As I come in as
    Service Chief, I'm anxious to do more unmanned work, not just
    on the carrier side but other unmanned developments which are
    all ongoing. I just have not had a chance to get at those
    myself and intend to spend a fair amount of time on that in the
    2008 program.
        Senator Stevens. Well respectfully, Admiral, I don't think
    anyone in any group has been more supportive of the unmanned
    research program than this subcommittee. As a matter of fact,
    we initiated it as an add-on one year.
        Even the Air Force wasn't interested in it. But now,
    everybody's interested in it. But we have an ongoing program.
    It is a joint program at a time when money is so tight. Why
    should we split off $1.8 billion and give it to you to
    duplicate what's being done in a joint program?
        The joint program will still be going on and I understand
    some of the problems we've had in the past about the structure
    of the landing gear and everything else for carrier landings,
    but this should not be that much different for an unmanned
    combat aircraft.
        I seriously questioned--this whole thing is just going up
    like this--I questioned whether we need to duplicate another
    program and split this off and have different personnel,
    different costs. Why can't you keep up with the joint program?
        Admiral Mullen. We believe that the outcome of this
    decision was a better outcome than that, which was coming from
    the joint program at the time. The combined output, and it also
    included where we were. Not just with the Air Force, but
    obviously where we were with DARPA.
        Senator Stevens. But if you get a separate program, why
    doesn't the marines, or why doesn't the Army? The Air Force
    already has the major program. I asked the Coast Guard to look
    at unmanned aircraft for the purpose of exploring the maritime
    boundary. We asked Intelligence, the immigration people to look
    at unmanned aircraft for the purpose of exploring or
    maintaining our surveillance of our borders.
        Why don't we just add a national program, instead of all of
    these separate offices that cost money? And I will tell you we
    are losing support up here because of redundancy of programs.
    And I urge you to go back and think that one over. I think the
    whole budget has to be thought over from the point of view of
    what's necessary now?
        We went over and saw the movement of bases from Germany
    into Italy--wonderful plan. But why does it have to be done
    now? A half million dollars for one base, three-quarters of a
    million dollars for another--excuse me, half a billion dollars
    for one base, three-quarters for another one. Now, moving them
    now, at time when we're at war, why should you separate to a
    different program now?
        I'm being too hard on you, I know. But that unmanned combat
    air vehicle for you, won't enter the fleet until 2018. These
    gentleman and I won't be here in 2018.
        We are anxious in making sure that the budgets for the next
    4 or 5--10 years, we hope to be here maybe that long--will meet
    the needs of the people in the services. I think we're causing
    expenses out into the future that are unnecessary and we ought
    to have one program for the Department of Defense on unmanned
    aircraft and I urge you to consider it.
        Do you have anything further, Senator?

                                 WAR DEFINITION

        Senator Inouye. One short question. In recent times, in
    many discussions and debates, we hear two phrases, big war,
    small war. Can any one of you tell me what you consider a big
    war, and what is considered a small war?
        For example, more specifically, is Iraq a big war? Is
    Afghanistan a big war? Was the Battle of Panama considered a
    small war? I would like to know what we're discussing.
        General Hagee. I think from a little bit, obviously it
    depends upon who you are. Lance Corporal Hagee, it's a big war,
    regardless of what it is, because he's up there, he's out
    front.
        I think regardless of whether it's the Battle of Falluja or
    whether it's World War II, as you know very well, I think at a
    higher level it's the impact throughout the world and it's the
    amount of resources.
        I would suggest that Iraq and Afghanistan--really Iraq
    right now, are a subset of the long war, which is a war against
    radical fundamentalism throughout the world. The focus right
    now is in Iraq and we're expending, as you know very well,
    Senator, quite a bit of resources over there. And so, I would
    call that a big conflict. Yes, sir.
        Admiral Mullen. Sir, I would chime in basically the same
    way. I think it is tied to sustainment, it is tied to
    resources, it's tied to the kind of combat capability you have
    to deliver over that extended period of time.
        We've certainly got war plans for major conflicts. So in
    that context, at least I think about a big war along those
    lines. I think, at least as I listen to your example, what
    happened in Panama, I would certainly put it in the small
    category.
        We probably have a tendency to think more along the lines
    of both time, capabilities, sustainment, and risk in other
    parts of the world when you are involved in a big way,
    somewhere else. And so I'm consistent with what Mike is saying
    here. I'm comfortable with that description.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran, do you have anything
    further?
        Senator Cochran. I have no further questions.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Stevens. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony.
    We appreciate you being here today and we thank you all for
    your distinguished service to the Nation and the work that all
    of the armed services people under your command do. We're proud
    of them and want to support them as much as possible.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                     Questions Submitted to David C. Winter
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

             NAVY EXPEDITIONARY COMBAT COMMAND GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR

        Question. In January 2006, the Navy stood up a Navy Expeditionary
    Combat Command designed to provide forces that operate in an
    expeditionary environment, and to relieve other forces in the Global
    War on Terror.
        The Command plans to establish three Riverine Squadrons. The first
    Squadron will deploy to Iraq in March 2007 to relieve a company of
    Marines.
        Funding to equip two Riverine Squadrons was requested in the fiscal
    year 2006 Supplemental. The House denied the requested funding citing
    an incomplete concept of operations and the lack of validated equipment
    requirements. As a result, the Navy is considering reducing the number
    of Riverine Squadrons in the near term.
        The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) endorsed the concept of
    the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command.
        In accordance with the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Navy is
    standing up a new Expeditionary Combat Command. What role will this
    Command and its components play in the Global War on Terror (GWOT)?
        Answer. The mission of Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) is
    to man, train and equip Navy forces to operate in an expeditionary
    environment and to provide the full spectrum of capabilities within its
    assigned forces to extend the Joint Force Maritime Component
    Commander's (JFMCC) tactical and operational reach near coastlines,
    inshore and the riparian environment. NECC will become a force
    multiplier to GWOT by:
      --Aligning current force structure under a single command;
      --Creating a process for irregular warfare development;
      --Capitalizing on synergies of current expeditionary forces; and
      --Task organizing force packages and reducing force closure time.
        When fully implemented, NECC will merge the following existing and
    developing capabilities: Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Cargo Handling,
    Coastal Warfare, Mobile Diving and Salvage, Navy Construction Force,
    Expeditionary Logistics Support Group, Riverine Force, Maritime Civil
    Affairs Group, Expeditionary Combat Readiness Center, Expeditionary
    Training Team, and Expeditionary Security Force.

              NAVY EXPEDITIONARY COMBAT COMMAND EQUIPPING STRATEGY

        Question. Funding for the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC)
    has been requested in the fiscal year 2006 Supplemental, but not in the
    regular fiscal year 2007 budget. What is the equipping strategy for the
    Navy Expeditionary Combat Command?
        Answer. The Navy requested funding in the DON fiscal year 2006
    Emergency Wartime Supplemental submission for the Riverine Force ($73.1
    million); the Maritime Civil Affairs Group ($6.4 million); the
    Expeditionary Training Team ($2.5 million); the Maritime Security Force
    ($6.5 million); Inshore Boat Units, which are components of the Naval
    Coastal Warfare community ($16.5 million); and the NECC Headquarters
    ($2.5 million). The primary rationale for the funding requested in the
    fiscal year 2006 Supplemental for the new components of the NECC is
    that the final decision to establish the NECC and the aforementioned
    components was not made until after the submission of the regular
    fiscal year 2007 budget.
        The following summarizes all of the efforts currently in motion and
    planned to fund the Riverine Force (Riverine Group ONE [headquarters]
    and three deployable Riverine Squadrons) in the OPN, WPN, OMN and PANMC
    appropriations. The first Squadron-level operational deployment to the
    U.S. Central Command Area of Responsibility is scheduled for March
    2007. Principal rationale behind requesting procurement funding on an
    accelerated timeline is due to the relatively long delivery projections
    for much of the equipment required by the deploying Riverine Squadrons
    (in many cases delivery forecasts are 12 months or longer, subsequent
    to contract/contract option award).
      --Fiscal Year 2006 Below Threshold Reprogramming.--$7.47 million to
            begin equipping Riverine Squadron ONE (RIVRON ONE). Fleet
            Forces Command is also providing OMN funding from existing
            resources in fiscal year 2006 to support the establishment of
            RIVRON ONE and the Riverine Group ONE headquarters on an
            accelerated timeline.
      --Fiscal Year 2006 Above Threshold Reprogramming.--$17.34 million to
            continue equipping RIVRON ONE, less combatant craft, which the
            Marine Corps will ``loan'' RIVRON ONE for initial training and
            the March 2007 deployment. With one exception, funding will
            ``pay back'' other Navy programs from which required equipment
            for RIVRON ONE is being redirected.
      --Fiscal Year 2006 DON Emergency Wartime Supplemental Request.--$73.1
            million to equip RIVRONs TWO and THREE, commands scheduled to
            sustain the aforementioned initial operational deployment in
            November 2007 and July 2008, respectively.
      --Fiscal Year 2007 President's Budget.--$22.31 million initially
            intended to begin establishment of one modestly sized riverine
            unit. This baseline concept was superceded by a more robust
            Riverine Force concept subsequent to submission of the PRESBUD.
            Currently, fiscal year 2007 funding would be used to sustain
            the Force being stood up in fiscal year 2006.

                          SEALS EFFECT ON END STRENGTH

        Question. The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) addresses a
    significant increase to our nation's Special Operations Forces' (SOF)
    capabilities which will include additional Navy SEALS and additional
    Navy personnel to train foreign military units, and a new Marine Corps
    Special Operations Component.
        Will the Department of the Navy increase its end strength to stand
    up these additional units?
        Answer. The Department of the Navy will not need to increase
    overall end strength to meet the growth of SOF. While aggregate Navy
    strength may be decreasing, Navy's overall force shaping provides for
    growth in certain manpower specialties, including SOF. The Navy has
    already established a specific plan that will add over 650 personnel
    (above a fiscal year 2004 baseline) to the Navy's SOF communities
    through fiscal year 2008, and is developing plans to rapidly, but
    prudently, implement QDR-directed growth increases in SOF and SOF
    supporting communities. This growth is based upon combatant commander
    requirements (U.S. Special Operations Command), as well as the ability
    to fully train, equip, and deliver SEALs and Special Warfare Combat
    Craft crewmen to the fleet.
        The establishment of the Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC)
    will be accomplished within the current 175,000 Marine Corps end
    strength funded in the fiscal year 2007 President's budget. It should
    be noted that several of the functions performed by the Marines
    assigned to MARSOC (e.g., Foreign Military Training) will, in the
    future, continue to be performed by those Marines, as a component of
    SOCOM, without affecting the end strength requirements of the Marine
    Corps. Furthermore, the Commandant of the Marine Corps has directed the
    creation of a Capabilities Assessment Group (CAG) to ensure the proper
    incorporation of QDR guidance and will look for efficiencies and
    changes within the Marine Corps to enable end strength to be stabilized
    at the QDR level of 175,000. The Group will report its recommendations
    this summer.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                           WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM

        Question. Mr. Secretary, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) is
    working on a water desalination program in southern New Mexico. The
    goal of this program is to study techniques in reverse osmosis that
    will lead to the production of a transportable water purification unit.
    In turn, these units would be used by Marines engaged in humanitarian
    and disaster relief efforts. They would also help meet the water
    demands of our expeditionary war fighters.
        As a long-time supporter of this program, I was proud to hear of
    ONR's success in this area, with one water purification system being
    transported to Alaska last year to provide fresh water for the Coast
    Guard, and two units being deployed to Mississippi in the aftermath of
    Hurricane Katrina to provide pure water for relief workers.
        Can you tell us a little about these missions and the value of the
    Expeditionary Unit Water Purification (EUWP) program?
        Answer. While the project has no formally designated phases, the
    following activities will be supported during the fourth year that
    congressional enhancements were received. The two EUWP Generation I
    (GEN I) systems, 100,000 gallon per day technology demonstrators, are
    currently located at the U.S. Navy Facilities Engineering Support
    Center, Pt. Hueneme, California, and the Tularosa Basin National
    Desalination Research Facility, Alamogordo, New Mexico. While under
    going testing and data collection, both GEN I systems were requested to
    support Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. The first GEN I was
    positioned near the Biloxi Regional Medical Center to provide potable
    water using water from the Gulf of Mexico as source water. The second
    GEN I was positioned at the Pascagoula Port to provide a Carnival
    Cruise ship a source of potable water. Mission Assignment#DOD-23,
    assigned by NORTHCOM was supported from September 9, 2005 through
    October 19, 2005.
        Question. What are the next goals of this program?
        Answer. A critical effort in the fiscal year 2006 plan is to put
    the Generation I systems through a third party validation program. The
    two selected programs both reside within the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) and are called Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
    program and Technology Testing and Evaluation Program (TTEP). TTEP is
    an outgrowth of the EPA's successful and internationally recognized ETV
    program. TTEP rigorously tests technologies against a wide range of
    performance characteristics, requirements or specifications. ETV test
    plans are used after being modified to meet homeland security
    requirements.
        The current plan also includes the effort of extending the
    development of science and technology in areas that will increase the
    output of water purification facilities while holding costs constant or
    at a reduced cost. While enhancing ``through-put'' is one of the
    principal objectives, no specific plans have been made to demonstrate
    this technology on a 500,000 gallon per day (gpd) demonstration model.
    Existing plans are to integrate and evaluate promising technology
    achieved, by conceptually designing them into a 300,000 gpd engineering
    prototype model. This effort, designated as Generation II (GEN II) is
    on schedule. On March 8, 2006, a kickoff meeting (Contract Award) was
    held at Pt. Hueneme, California to start the fabrication of the Naval
    Sea Systems Feasibility Demonstrator. The preliminary design of the GEN
    II is suitable for consideration as a replacement for large amphibious
    ship water purification system(s).
        Another part of the fiscal year 2006 plan is to award second year
    options to the promising performers who were selected last year in
    response to Office of Naval Research's, (joint with NASA), Broad Agency
    Announcement (BAA) 05-005 titled, ``Science and Technology in Water
    Desalination and Purification''. Also the EUWP program plans to
    initiate the commercialization (scaling up) of selected technologies
    from BAA 03-011; same title as mentioned above.
        Question. What further successes do you foresee with fiscal year
    2007 funding for this program?
        Answer. All efforts initiated to date will be completed with the
    fiscal year 2006 funding provided.
        Question. Does the Department of Defense have the authority it
    needs to transfer this technology to the public sector?
        Answer. The Expeditionary Unit Water Purification program brought
    together the expertise of many organizations, to include other
    Department of Defense (DOD) Services, Federal Agencies, International
    Partners, and private contractors to ensure the success of this effort.
    The participation of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) with their
    extensive background in water use and reclamation is expected to assist
    in the smooth transfer of beneficial desalination technology to the
    civilian desalination market through the direction of test and
    evaluation activities, and the coordination of test results with
    industry. The BOR is a recognized leader in desalination and water
    purification research, both domestically and internationally, and is a
    principle conduit to both the consumer and most suppliers. It is
    expected that the promising technology(s) provided by the EUWP program
    will be utilized by the BOR and the DOD Services.
        Question. What can Congress do to help the Office of Naval Research
    (ONR) make this research and technology more readily available
    commercially?
        Answer. Through the foresight of the Congress in funding this
    effort, ONR has had the opportunity to develop the Expeditionary Unit
    Water Purification program to be useful in a variety of situations,
    such as the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. However, at this time
    additional resources are not required for this program.

                         NAVY HIGH ENERGY LASER TESTING

        Question. The High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility at White
    Sands Missile Range has allowed for much development and demonstration
    of High Energy Laser Weapon programs. It is my understanding that the
    high energy laser testing by the Navy at this facility has met with a
    number of recent successes.
        Can you describe some of these successes for us?
        Answer. The High Energy Laser--Low Aspect Target Tracking (HEL-
    LATT) program was created to determine requirements and develop tools
    to support tracking and laser aim point maintenance for the shipboard
    high-energy laser weapon system.
        In fiscal year 2005, ONR funded the completion of the integration
    of new hardware and evaluation of the optical tracking system to
    perform laser aim point maintenance. The objectives of HEL-LATT have
    been to adapt a well-proven AIM-algorithm aided by an appropriate set
    of modern sensors on the Sea Lite Beam Director (SLBD) for precision
    aim point tracking. The potential tracking and aim point solution is
    based on Advanced Tactical Anti-Air technology. SLBD is employing the
    adapted algorithm and its new sensors for a sub-sonic shoot down. SLBD
    is to acquire and track maneuvering targets against the sky, against a
    transitional sky to mountain and finally against the mountain
    backgrounds.
        In an initial series of dynamic tests using the software and track
    processors, high G maneuvering targets against the sky background have
    been tracked in nine out of ten passes, and the laser quality aim point
    was maintained for impressive durations.
        During the past two years, the HEL-LATT program has added three
    passive IR sensors for precision tracking to support the Sea Lite Beam
    Director (SLBD). These are:
      --Mid-Wave Infrared (MWIR) sensor to Automatic Aimpoint Selection and
            Maintenance (AuASAM) telescope for target acquisition from a
            Radar handover. This sensor has twice the field-of-view of the
            Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) and has greatly improved
            sensitivity (Noise equivalent delta Temperature that is 250
            times lower). This sensor allows the SLBD to acquire a target
            between 15 to 20 kilometers against a mountain background; the
            FLIR requires a range of less than 5km to perform this mission.
      --Long-Wave Infrared (LWIR) sensor in the Hot Spot Tracker (HST) port
            to provide fine tracking during a Mid-Infrared Advanced
            Chemical Laser (MIRACL) with jitter of a few micro-radians.
      --MWIR sensor in the HST port to improve target lethality during a
            MIRACL.
        Question. What would fiscal year 2007 funding for High Energy Laser
    Testing allow you to achieve?
        Answer. The PB07 request did not include any funds for this
    purpose. Additional resources could be used for additional tracking
    tests in the presence of a high energy laser beam, and pursuit of
    upgrades to improve tracking algorithms.
        Question. What do you need from White Sands Missile Range and/or
    New Mexico in order to achieve these goals?
        Answer. Missile range time and personnel at WSMR to perform and
    finish the testing.

                          MAGDALENA RIDGE OBSERVATORY

        Question. The Magdalena Ridge Observatory project is an
    international scientific collaboration that involves the Office of
    Naval Research. The observatory will house a 2.4 meter diameter
    telescope and an array of optical/infrared telescopes.
        What is the value of these telescopes to the Navy and the
    Department of Defense as a whole?
        Answer. The military value derives from development of new
    technologies for implementation of the Navy's Prototype Optical
    Interferometer (NPOI), currently providing operational data to the
    United States Naval Observatory. These technologies, such as the
    coupling of adaptive optics with optical interferometry, will increase
    the sensitivity of ground-based interferometers to improve their use
    for accurate star catalogs for navigation and precise timekeeping, and
    for space object monitoring and identification.
        The 2.4 meter telescope will have rapid tracking capability that
    will allow it to slew to any target and acquire data within one minute
    of receipt of notice. The telescope is situated to enable tracking of
    missiles launched from White Sands Missile Range.
        Question. When is this project scheduled to be complete?
        Answer. The single 2.4 meter telescope delivery is on schedule and
    first light is projected in early fiscal year 2007. The delivery of the
    first of the unit telescopes for the interferometer array is scheduled
    for late fiscal year 2007 with the final unit telescope delivery in
    fiscal year 2009.

                             LONG WAVELENGTH ARRAY

        Question. The Long Wavelength Array project includes the Naval
    Research Laboratory and will build a very large aperture radio
    astronomy telescope designed to study the electromagnetic spectrum in
    the areas of astrophysics and space physics. Such an instrument would
    keep the United States on track with instruments being built in Europe,
    Australia, and China.
        What is fiscal year 2006 funding for this project being used for?
        Answer. Initially, fiscal year 2006 funding will be used to define
    the system requirements for the array including dipole array antennas
    and detectors and overall array dimensions. Development of a prototype
    dipole antenna will be carried out and funds will be used to begin site
    preparation for the ultimate long wavelength array.
        Question. What will the project accomplish in the scope of national
    defense and security efforts?
        Answer. The Long Wavelength Array (LWA) will provide unprecedented
    spatial and temporal ionospheric imaging; it will provide unique data
    on the structure of Solar Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) for an improved
    understanding of space weather effects including geomagnetic storm
    prediction. This research will help provide improved ionospheric models
    which can affect GPS, communications and targeting systems, geolocation
    of tactical emitters, imaging by space-based radars, satellite
    communications, and over-the-horizon radars.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye

                               C-130 CANCELLATION

        Question. Secretary Winter, you are undoubtedly aware of the
    controversy over last year's C-130 cancellation and restoration. As a
    former businessman, can you assure the Committee that the new approach
    makes sense and will meet the Marine's requirements for KC-130s?
        Answer. The Marine Corps is currently in a multi-year procurement
    program with the Air Force to procure a total of 34 aircraft by the end
    of fiscal year 2008. A study has just been initiated by OSD (PA&E) to
    examine alternative business cases: refurbishment of F and R model KC-
    130 aircraft versus additional new buys of KC-130Js. The Department of
    the Navy will work with PA&E while monitoring KC-130 OPTEMPO and
    availability of F and R model aircraft for refurbishment while being
    mindful of the value of avoiding a production break in the KC-130J
    line. The Department of the Navy views this as a likely fiscal year
    2009 budget issue.

                       SHIPBUILDING AND OPERATIONS COSTS

        Question. Secretary Winter, the Navy is under significant fiscal
    constraints given the high cost of shipbuilding, yet its operating cost
    requirements are not decreasing. How are you planning on alleviating
    some of this pressure?
        Answer. Management of the cost of Navy's shipbuilding program is a
    priority to me. In this context I use the term shipbuilding in a
    holistic way--the hull, mechanical, and electrical (HME) systems plus
    the weapons, C4ISR, and other systems that give the ship its combat
    power.
        The Department of the Navy is actively working with our partners in
    industry and with the Congress to alleviate the cost pressure on
    shipbuilding. We must recognize the need to build a Fleet with the
    capabilities our nation needs at a cost that is sustainable across
    time.
        The Department is responsible for recommending to Congress
    shipbuilding requirements and capabilities such that stable funding can
    be planned and provided for industry across the FYDP. The Department is
    off to a good start with the analysis that underpins the recently
    submitted 30 Year Shipbuilding Plan, a plan that identifies a Navy of
    313 ships at an average cost of $13.4 billion (in fiscal year 2005
    dollars) each year to achieve that plan. The Department is also
    responsible for controlling shipbuilding requirements/capabilities:
    both in new programs and in programs already in production. This is an
    area where, clearly, we must do better--and it will take strong
    leadership on the part of both the senior civilian and uniformed
    leadership to curb the Department's appetite for increased
    requirements/capabilities. Within the Department, our civilian and
    uniformed leadership will need to work side-by-side in this endeavor,
    at all levels of program management and execution, to ensure the
    Department gets the maximum combat value for every dollar invested.
        The Department will also work alongside industry to identify a
    model that supports a viable business base through construction and
    integration of highly capable ships at low rates of production. The
    Department will work with industry to motivate and implement rigorous
    process improvements such as Lean Six Sigma, investments in capital
    improvements that support low rates of production of high capability
    systems, and workforce investments which will ensure the composition of
    skill sets within the industry. Finally, the Department will tailor
    contracts and business arrangements with industry to motivate these
    desired behaviors that are in the national interests.
        The Department will also work closely with Congress to ensure
    funding and a funding profile that supports execution of the 30 Year
    Shipbuilding Plan. Stability in funding at an average of $13.4 billion
    per year (in fiscal year 2005 dollars) is the sine quo non of achieving
    the plan, as it provides the stabilized business base necessary for
    industry to confidently plan for the future and it provides industry
    acceptable risk to implement the changes discussed above.
        In addition to their contribution to shipbuilding, the Navy is
    working several additional initiatives to reduce cost in the areas of
    operations and maintenance. These measures include a ship maintenance
    process called SHIPMAIN, used for maintenance process improvement, a
    revitalized Energy Conservation Program (ENCON), and implementation of
    continuous process improvement at Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)
    and Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR).
      --SHIPMAIN aligns the modernization of surface ships and aircraft
            carriers into a cohesive, single process. The process combines
            all modernization information into a single database, Navy Data
            Environment (NDE). Initial baselining of the modernization
            database in support of SHIPMAIN avoided nearly $200 million in
            costs across the FYDP. The SHIPMAIN process also administers
            Multi-Ship Multi-Option (MSMO) contracts allowing longer terms
            for the execution agent. MSMO contracts create a stabilized
            workload for Private Industry, which allows a more stabilized
            workforce, thus reducing cost.
      --The Energy Conservation Program includes a centralized ENCON
            website that provides training, guidance, and historical data
            that Ship Commanding Officers and Engineering Department
            personnel use to assist in reducing energy costs. The ENCON
            program includes on-site and VTC training for ship and squadron
            personnel, and a compilation of the Navy Energy Usage Reporting
            System (NEURS) data. Operational target incentives are paid by
            Type Commanders to ships and aircraft squadrons who use less
            fuel during operations. Another part of ENCON develops and
            validates shipboard performance of mature energy saving
            systems/components. This program reduces energy costs for a
            relatively minor investment.
      --Navy must transform the way it does business within its systems
            commands to dramatically cut costs. This means improving
            throughput, reducing new product development cycles, enhancing
            personnel development, and preserving fundamental values. Both
            NAVAIR and NAVSEA are aggressively adopting a culture of
            continuous process improvement with a standardized, disciplined
            approach that includes industry-recognized best practices of
            Lean, Six Sigma, and Theory of Constraints; with prioritized
            application of these methodologies to the right value streams.

         FUNDING FOR RECRUITING AND RETENTION INCENTIVES, BONUSES AND
                                  ADVERTISING

        Question. Secretary Winter, both the Navy and Marine Corps rely on
    supplemental funding to augment recruiting and retention incentives,
    bonuses, and advertising.
        Knowing that the recruiting and retention challenges will continue,
    what is your plan to fund these programs?
        Answer. Funding for recruiting, retention, bonuses and advertising
    requirements to include new missions such as the Marine Corps Special
    Operations Command and the Navy Riverine Force, will be included in the
    baseline budget requests to Congress. However, variations in the
    manpower environment and extraordinary demands for critical skills make
    it impossible to anticipate these costs with complete accuracy. Given
    the uncertainty of the impact of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) on
    recruiting new Servicemembers and retaining existing Servicemembers,
    costs for recruiting and retention incentives, bonuses, and additional
    advertising may be submitted for consideration in future GWOT
    Supplemental Budgets, if circumstances warrant.
        There are unique challenges and stresses on recruitment and
    retention precipitated by the GWOT, particularly with respect to SEALs
    and Medical personnel whose communities are very heavily utilized to
    support the Global War on Terror. To address these challenges, we have
    intensified our efforts to recruit and retain SEALS and Medical
    personnel. Examples of these efforts include raising the enlistment and
    reenlistment bonus and restoring active component recruiters along with
    funding the associated O&MN support costs.

               BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING (BAH) BUDGET SHORTFALL

        Question. Secretary Winter, the Navy is facing a $150 million
    shortfall in fiscal year 2006 as a result of the increased rates for
    the basic allowance for housing.
        How is the Navy planning on addressing this shortfall and how can
    they be prevented in the future?
        Answer. There is a shortfall in the Military Personnel, Navy (MPN)
    account attributable to higher than expected BAH rates, which became
    effective in January of this year. The Department of the Navy has
    experienced higher than CONUS wide average BAH increases, due to higher
    costs in our fleet concentration areas compared to other Service
    locations. This shortfall was exacerbated by inclusion of military
    personnel accounts in the across-the-board rescission and other funding
    reductions. To offset these reductions, Navy is considering
    reprogramming from other appropriations as well as reducing certain
    expenditures within the MPN account. For example, Navy is delaying
    shore-to-shore moves of 3,788 Sailors and accepting early voluntary
    separations among some enlisted personnel, consistent with force
    shaping plans.
        To prevent similar shortfalls in future budgets, the Departments of
    the Navy and Defense are working closely on more accurate predictions
    and budgeting. Navy has developed, and is using, more sophisticated
    modeling scenarios to track the changing demographics of our force. The
    Department of Defense, in conjunction with the Runzheimer survey team,
    is making progress on instituting Service-specific rates for projecting
    and budgeting BAH, rather than using a single average rate-of-increase
    for all Services.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted to Admiral Michael G. Mullen
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                     DECLINING BUDGET AND THE 313 SHIP NAVY

        Question. Admiral Mullen has proposed a shipbuilding strategy to
    increase the size of the fleet from 281 ships to 313 ships during the
    next five years.
        The Navy estimates that executing the 313-ship proposal would
    require an annual average of $13.4 billion for new ship construction.
    The current request for ship construction is $11.5 billion.
        However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the
    Congressional Research Service (CRS) both estimate that the
    shipbuilding strategy will require $18 to $20 billion per year, or
    about 37 percent more. This is primarily due to rising ship costs and
    poor Navy cost estimates.
        We cannot sustain the current level of Defense spending. I
    anticipate flattening or declining budgets over the next few years.
    Under these budget conditions, how likely is it that the Navy will be
    able to increase funding for construction of new ships to achieve your
    new 313-ship plan?
        Answer. It is my intention to invest the funds, within the Navy's
    topline budget, needed to support the 30 year shipbuilding plan
    presented to Congress.
        The Navy is making internal resource allocation decisions necessary
    to quickly increase the shipbuilding account to approximately $13.4
    billion and to maintain that level of funding annually (adjusted for
    inflation). We believe that by strictly controlling requirements and
    holding ourselves to a stable ship construction plan, our shipbuilding,
    current personnel and readiness requirements can be balanced and
    sustained in the face of flattening budgets. This strategy becomes more
    difficult in the face of declining budgets.

                                 313 SHIP PLAN

        Question. To fund the 313-ship plan, does the Navy plan to reduce
    other procurement programs?
        Answer. We believe the shipbuilding plan is affordable and
    executable, but it is going to take discipline and a commitment to
    controlling requirements and costs. Navy will look carefully at all
    other procurement accounts and I expect some to be reduced or moved to
    the right. The SCN budget is balanced with all other Navy procurement
    accounts so that all are adequately funded to sustain near-term
    operational readiness and prepare for an uncertain but potentially
    dangerous future.
        The 30-year shipbuilding plan and the requested resources to
    procure it reflect the Navy's commitment to stabilize the industrial
    base while still achieving the appropriate balance of affordability and
    capability in all ship classes.
        Question. What assumptions does the Navy make about its ability to
    control personnel and operation and maintenance spending?
        Answer. We recognize the pressures that personnel expenditures and
    operation and maintenance spending place on the Navy's procurement
    accounts. The Navy has made the assumptions that Operations and
    Maintenance accounts will remain flat for the foreseeable future and
    Military Personnel accounts will show zero net growth in light of
    rising health care costs and anticipated reductions in end strength. We
    are working diligently to balance near-term readiness, personnel
    requirements, and our procurement accounts.

                      UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLES (UCAV)

        Question. The Department of Defense (DOD) has been thinking about
    developing an unmanned combat aircraft for years. In 1999, the Air
    Force and the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) awarded
    contracts to begin research for capability.
        In December 2004, the DOD decided to move the program from DARPA to
    a joint Air Force and Navy program office. However, in January 2006 the
    decision was changed and now the Navy and Air Force are pursuing
    separate programs to develop unmanned air vehicles.
        The Navy is requesting $239 million for fiscal year 2007.
    Investment over the fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011 period
    will exceed $1.8 billion.
        Are you satisfied that separating the Navy and Air Force programs
    is the best way to proceed in developing unmanned combat aircraft known
    as UCAV?
        Answer. I believe there is enormous value in joint programs but in
    this particular case the Navy requirements are unique enough to warrant
    a separate program from the Air Force. The 2005 Quadrennial Defense
    Review (QDR) recommended restructuring the Joint Unmanned Combat Air
    System (J-UCAS) program to better focus limited resources on developing
    and fielding future unmanned warfighting capabilities.
        Initial Navy Unmanned Combat Aircraft System (Navy UCAS) program
    efforts will be specifically tailored to develop the technologies
    required for carrier-based operations, leading to a carrier
    demonstration in fiscal year 2011. The results of this demonstration
    will inform a decision to develop a low-observable, carrier-based,
    penetrating surveillance/strike platform capable of operating in a high
    threat environment.
        The Navy UCAS program will leverage the technology developed in the
    J-UCAS program to date, and future advancements developed in other DOD
    programs.
        Question. What was the problem with the joint program?
        Answer. The joint program wasn't able to address the unique
    requirements of a carrier-based, Navy Unmanned Combat Aircraft System
    (Navy UCAS). The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) recommended
    restructuring the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) program to
    better focus limited resources on developing and fielding future
    unmanned warfighting capabilities, not because of a problem with the
    Joint program.
        Navy is committed to sharing technology developments from the UCAS
    program with the Air Force and other DOD entities to facilitate
    efficient development of complementary unmanned capabilities that meet
    Naval and Joint requirements.
        Question. The current plan won't see Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles
    entering the fleet until 2018. Does this schedule meet the needs of the
    Navy for persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance?
        Answer. Campaign analysis has shown a need for persistent,
    penetrating ISR capability in the 2015 timeframe. The Navy will
    continue to rely on our stand-off ISR capability and accept some
    warfighting risk until Navy UCAS reaches IOC. At IOC, Navy UCAS will
    provide a carrier-based, low-observable platform able to penetrate the
    battle space and provide persistent intelligence, surveillance and
    reconnaissance.
        Question. What equipment will the UCAV replace?
        Answer. The Navy Unmanned Combat Air System (Navy UCAS) will not
    replace, but rather complement the capabilities of current and future
    Naval aircraft. It will fill gaps identified in the JROC validated
    Joint Strike Enabler Initial Capabilities Document.

                                SEAL RECRUITING

        Question. Does the Navy believe that it can increase its recruiting
    for the additional Navy SEALS without sacrificing quality standards or
    sacrificing the quality of the training?
        Answer. The Navy believes it can maintain the high training
    standards and caliber of its SEAL forces in this time of growth.
        To this end, the Navy will ensure recruiting and accession efforts
    target only those individuals most capable of completing the rigorous
    Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/s) training and contributing to
    the most challenging combat operations.
        BUD/s has the capacity to train over 900 enlisted SEAL candidates
    per year. BUD/s maintains definable and objective standards of
    performance for SEAL selection and training. These combat-proven
    standards will not be compromised as the Navy increases its SEAL
    operator inventory.
        Through a collaborative effort between Navy Recruiting Command and
    Naval Special Warfare Command, we have implemented several new
    initiatives to enhance our selection, monitoring and mentoring of SEAL
    candidates. These initiatives include:
      --Increasing the yearly goal for enlisted SEAL recruits by 27
            percent;
      --Increasing financial incentives for successful SEAL recruits by
            over 100 percent;
      --Hiring former SEALs to focus recruiting efforts on the proper
            candidate pool, and to test, educate and mentor SEAL recruits
            for success in the Basic Underwater Demolition School (BUD/s).
      --Establishing a specific SEAL monthly recruiting goal for each Navy
            Recruiting District (NRD) in addition to the aggregated
            national goal.
      --Designating a SEAL coordinator at each NRD to mentor all SEAL
            recruits in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP). This is expected
            to reduce attrition from the DEP and to help motivate
            prospective SEALS to physically and mentally condition
            themselves for the challenges they will face when they come on
            active duty.
      --Establishing a requirement for NRD Commanders to report weekly to
            Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, on the status of SEAL DEP
            personnel.
        These measures are intended to increase the number of men who
    successfully complete SEAL selection and training without sacrificing
    the Navy's high standards.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye

                           SEA-BASED MISSILE DEFENSE

        Question. Admiral Mullen, one of the most successful aspects of our
    nation's missile defense program has been the Navy's sea-based missile
    defense program. I am told that six of the seven tests of this system
    have been successful. In the Pacific, we face several potential missile
    threats. Can you update the Committee on your plans to deploy the sea-
    based missile defense program and the role you see for its use in both
    Western Pacific and Hawaii.
        Answer. The Navy is collaborating with the Missile Defense Agency
    (MDA) to develop and field a sea-based missile defense program.
        By the end of calendar year 2007 we will have modified seven
    destroyers to track ballistic missiles and seven destroyers and three
    cruisers to both track ballistic missiles and engage them with SM-3
    missiles. All of these ships are based in the Pacific. Two Pearl
    Harbor-based AEGIS cruisers are capable of firing this new missile--
    Lake Erie (CG 70) and Port Royal (CG 73). The San Diego-based AEGIS
    cruiser, U.S.S. Shiloh (CG 67), is currently being so modified and will
    be shifting homeports to the Western Pacific later this year. As the
    Navy continues to develop enhanced missile defense capabilities, we
    will work closely with MDA to develop the most effective operational
    concepts for their use in support of Combatant Commanders and national
    security objectives.

               PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITY (PMRF) PERFORMANCE

        Question. Admiral Mullen, as you know testing of the AEGIS system
    is done in Hawaii at the Pacific Missile Range Facility. Are you
    pleased with the way these tests have been conducted?
        Answer. We are very pleased with the test and evaluation (T&E)
    capabilities PMRF provides to the AEGIS ballistic missile defense
    program and the RDT&E community. We remain committed to using PMRF as
    our primary test range for AEGIS BMD and the future testing of SM-6.
        We conducted four key T&E events at PMRF during fiscal year 2005,
    including one successful AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) test
    critical to the Navy's development and fielding of a ship-based BMD
    system. Three additional tests have been planned for fiscal year 2006
    at PMRF.

                           RESTORE PRIVATE SHIPYARDS

        Question. Admiral Mullen, the supplemental request includes more
    than $1 billion to restore private shipyards damaged by Hurricane
    Katrina. I have been advised that there may be a problem because
    insurance claims are in dispute. In the meantime, damages aren't being
    repaired. The longer the shipyards aren't fixed, the more it will cost
    the Navy to build its ships.
        Could the Navy pay to fix the infrastructure today and be
    reimbursed from the shipyards after the claims were adjudicated?
        Answer. The Supplemental Section of the fiscal year 2006 DOD
    Appropriations Act appropriated money to pay portions of the
    shipbuilding costs related to Hurricane Katrina. There is no current
    legal or regulatory authority for the Navy to pay costs that are
    actually or potentially covered by a shipyard's private insurance
    policies. However, the Navy believes such payment would set a very
    dangerous precedent for the future. The Navy's position is that it is
    not liable for any costs covered by private insurance. The Navy would
    therefore incur only those costs that were already allocable, allowable
    and reasonable under existing cost accounting principles and contract
    terms and would return as much of the Supplemental funds as possible to
    the Treasury. Consistent with this Navy position, the Conference Report
    language accompanying the Hurricane Katrina funding (Defense
    Appropriations Conference Report 109-359) specifies that the Navy will
    submit a report to Congress certifying that the increased costs to
    contractor funded programs are ``. . . not subject to reimbursement by
    any third party (e.g., FEMA or private insurer) . . .'' The Navy
    provided this certification to the Defense Committees on February 28,
    2006. The costs to fix shipyard infrastructure are subject to
    reimbursement by private insurance, even though the amount is likely to
    be a subject of litigation. Therefore, absent specific statutory
    authority to do so, the Navy is prohibited from using appropriated
    funds to reimburse a shipyard for these private costs.

                              HEALTH BENEFIT COSTS

        Question. Admiral Mullen, the health benefits provided to our
    military and their families have proven to be a useful recruiting and
    retention tool. The Department of Defense is proposing new enrollment
    fees and pharmacy co-pays to address the rising costs of providing
    these benefits. While the majority of these increases affect retired
    personnel, all service members and their families will have new
    pharmacy co-pays.
        Do you foresee this having a negative effect on your service
    members and their families?
        Answer. I am committed to maintaining the quality of our health
    care for our service members and their families, but I also think it is
    reasonable to assume that any rise in out-of-pocket expenses--in any
    Navy program or benefit--will be negatively perceived by some members
    and their families.
        The effect this perception has on recruiting or retention behavior
    is difficult to predict, as such behavior hinges on many factors.
    However, I expect the impact of increasing the cost of pharmacy co-pay
    to be small on our Sailors and their families. Active duty members and
    their families may continue to obtain prescriptions at military
    treatment facilities at no personal expense. Family members may also
    use the TRICARE Mail Order Program with reduced co-pays for generic
    drugs. If, however, the family member chooses to use a retail pharmacy,
    there would be an increase in the co-pay charge.

              HEALTH BENEFIT COST--AFFECT ON RECRUITING/RETENTION

        Question. Admiral Mullen, do you believe these benefits will have a
    substantial affect on recruiting and retention?
        Answer. Recruiting and retention behavior depends upon a great many
    factors and is often difficult to predict, but I do not believe that
    increasing the pharmacy co-pay share for active members and their
    families will have a significant negative impact on recruiting or
    retention.
        The health benefits we deliver will not diminish. Indeed, the
    proposed increase in co-pay fees only serve to ensure that our health
    care system remains the gold standard that it is today. Active duty
    members and their families may continue to obtain prescriptions at
    military treatment facilities at no personal expense. Family members
    may also use the TRICARE Mail Order Program with reduced co-pays for
    generic drugs. If, however, the family member chooses to use a retail
    pharmacy, there would be an increase in the co-pay.
        Historical responses to Navy surveys indicate that our medical and
    dental benefits are one of the primary reasons for staying in the Navy
    among junior and senior Sailors alike. I am committed to making sure
    they remain such an incentive. I do not believe that restoring TRICARE
    enrollment cost sharing proportions, for retirees, to their 1995 levels
    will have a significant negative impact on retention when considered in
    the broader context of the excellent medical and dental benefits
    offered.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted to General Michael W. Hagee
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                        COST ESTIMATE TO RESET THE FORCE

        Question. Continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken
    their toll on Marine Corps equipment.
        As a result, Supplemental requests include significant funding for
    equipment reset. Funding for Marine Corps procurement in Supplementals
    is typically two to three times higher than in the regular budget.
        For example, in fiscal year 2005, Congress provided $3.7 billion to
    reset Marine Corps equipment. In fiscal year 2006, Congress provided
    $2.1 billion in a ``bridge fund'' attached to the regular Defense
    Appropriations bill for that purpose. The fiscal year 2006 Supplemental
    requests $3.3 billion for Marine Corps reset.
        The Marine Corps estimates that after approval of the fiscal year
    2006 Supplemental request, it will have a remaining reset bill of $6.5
    billion.
        Resetting equipment is a major challenge for the Marine Corps.
        What is the Marine Corps' strategy for reconstituting equipment
    over the long-term? Is there a cost estimate for reset over the next
    few years?
        Answer. Last summer we evaluated the impact or Operations Iraqi
    Freedom and Enduring Freedom on the entire Marine Corps inventory.
    Using October 1, 2005 as a cut off date, we assessed what would be
    required to ``reset the force'', i.e., restore the Marine Corps to the
    readiness it enjoyed before Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
    Freedom. We took a comprehensive approach that accounted for the
    material condition of equipment in use in the theater of operations,
    the need to restock our prepositioning sites (afloat and ashore), the
    need to replace equipment that had been ``borrowed'' from home
    stations/CONUS-based forces and the requirement to support Iraqi
    Training Teams. The resultant reset cost is the amount of money
    required to reset the force as of October 1, 2005.
        We estimate this total cost to be $11.7 billion. We believe that we
    could execute this funding in two years and have phased our
    supplemental requests accordingly. We cannot execute the entire amount
    in one year due to industrial base limitations. When the resultant
    equipment is delivered, the readiness ``bathtub'' caused by the war
    would be filled.
        We will identify all costs (fuel, personnel, ammunition, spares,
    attrition losses, etc.) incurred after October 1, 2005 in our annual
    Cost-of-War request.
        The Title IX Bridge Supplemental provided $4.4 billion: $2.8
    billion for cost of war and $1.6 billion to reset the force. The
    current Supplemental request before the Congress is for $6 billion:
    $2.5 billion for cost of war and $3.5 billion to reset the force. Our
    total fiscal year 2006 Supplemental request is thus $10.4 billion: $5.3
    billion for the cost of war, which includes $3.6 billion for
    operational costs and $1.7 billion to replace destroyed equipment, and
    $5.1 billion to reset the force.
        Given approval of the current Supplemental request, the Marine
    Corps will need an additional $6.6 billion to complete resetting the
    force, which we will continue to seek through supplemental funding.

                 SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING AND USMC EQUIPMENT RESET

        Question. How long do you plan to pursue Supplemental funding to
    reset Marine Corps equipment? When will you transition the costs for
    reset into the regular defense budget?
        Answer. The Marine Corps requirement to reset the force is $11.7
    billion. We believe that we could execute this funding in two years and
    have phased our supplemental requests accordingly. We cannot execute
    the entire amount in one year due to industrial base limitations. The
    Title IX Bridge Supplemental provided $4.4 billion: $2.8 billion for
    cost of war and $1.6 billion to reset the force. The current
    Supplemental request before the Congress is for $6 billion: $2.5
    billion for cost of war and $3.5 billion to reset the force. Our total
    fiscal year 2006 Supplemental request is thus $10.4 billion: $5.3
    billion for the cost of war, which includes $3.6 billion for
    operational costs and $1.7 billion to replace destroyed equipment, and
    $5.1 billion to reset the force.
        Given approval of the current Supplemental request, the Marine
    Corps will need an additional $6.6 billion to complete resetting the
    force. Since we plan to pursue supplemental funding for the remainder
    of our $11.7 billion total reset requirement, reset costs will not
    transition into the regular defense budget.

                                  MV-22 OSPREY

        Question. The V-22 Osprey program has completed final operational
    testing and is authorized to enter full rate production.
        The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes $1.3 billion for
    procurement of V-22 Ospreys. The request funds the purchase of 14
    aircraft.
        The current supplemental request does not include funding for V-
    22s. However, General Hagee advocated for funding in the supplemental
    to replace Marine Corps helicopters destroyed and damaged in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. His request was denied by OMB. In the attached letter,
    General Hagee asked for your support for this program in the
    supplemental.
        The V-22 Osprey will replace CH-46E and CH-53D helicopters. Both
    legacy assets are no longer in production and are experiencing
    significant wear and tear in support of the war.
        The V-22 Osprey program has completed final operational testing and
    is authorized to enter full rate production. As you know, I have long
    supported this cutting-edge aircraft.
        Could you provide us a program update and describe how the aircraft
    is performing?
        Answer. The MV-22 Osprey is performing very well; the program has
    flown over 15,000 flight hours since May 2002. The first CH-46 squadron
    (HMM-263) stood down on June 3, 2005 to begin transitioning from the
    Sea Knight to the Osprey. VMM-263 was re-designated as a MV-22 squadron
    on March 3, 2006 at a ceremony at MCAS New River, North Carolina.
        To date 29 Block A aircraft have been delivered and are being used
    to conduct training at VMMT-204 and fleet operational testing at VMX-22
    at MCAS New River. Additionally, 3 Block B aircraft, the deployable
    configuration, have been delivered to VMX-22 for operational evaluation
    and subsequent transfer to VMM-263. VMM-263 will deploy to combat next
    year. The MV-22 will provide the Marines and Sailors who ride in them
    the most capable and survivable assault aircraft available.

                         SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR V-22

        Question. Why is no funding included in supplemental for V-22s?
    Considering the declining inventory of helicopters the V-22 replaces
    and the wear and tear they are experiencing after four year of combat,
    should V-22s be included in the supplemental?
        Answer. The Marine Corps top unfunded aviation supplemental
    requirement is the MV-22. The Marine Corps has lost a total of 23
    helicopters in support of the war, to include four CH-46s. The only
    active Marine Corps helicopter production line capable of replacing the
    40-year-old CH-46 is the MV-22.
        While it is our intent to field two 12-plane MV-22 squadrons per
    year with the first deployment to Iraq in 2007, budgetary restrictions
    have limited the rate of buy to less than what is needed to smoothly
    transition the force and replace combat losses. Although 15 aircraft
    were originally planned for fiscal year-06, funds were only made
    available for 9 aircraft in the Presidents budget. The MV-22
    operational inventory will not meet the required number of aircraft to
    fulfill our transition plan until fiscal year 2012 with the current
    program of record. Only additional aircraft procurement in fiscal year
    2006-2008 can sufficiently address this shortfall.
        Based upon near-term industrial production constraints, the Marine
    Corps requested $230 million in fiscal year 2006 Supplemental funding
    for the MV-22 Program: $215 million to fully fund three new MV-22 Block
    B aircraft, and $15 million in non-recurring engineering to determine
    the requirements needed to modify eight existing Low-Rate Initial
    Production aircraft into an operational configuration. This request was
    deferred until 2007. Funding of this request is crucial to the success
    of our Marines in both the near and long term.

                    MARINE CORPS SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

        Question. Will the Marine Corps maintain any control over the new
    Marine Corps Special Operations Component, or will this new unit be
    under the exclusive control of the Special Operations Command?
        Answer. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) is
    assigned to and will be under the operational control of USSOCOM.
    USSOCOM will execute its title 10 service authorities over Special
    Operations Forces, relating to MARSOC.
        The Marine Corps will continue to be responsible for the
    traditional training and equipping of Marines before they attach to
    SOCOM.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye

                           KC-130 INVENTORY OBJECTIVE

        Question. General Hagee, last year in a move related to the
    termination of the C-130 line, the Marine Corps purchase in 2006 was
    first increased to 12, then reduced by DOD when it decided to continue
    production into the future. This year, the request would purchase only
    4 KC-130s.
        Does this new plan make sense and will it allow you to meet your
    inventory objective?
        Answer. The Marine Corps is currently in a multi-year procurement
    program with the Air Force to procure a total of 34 aircraft by the end
    of fiscal year 2008. This number is 17 aircraft short of the inventory
    objective of 51 necessary to support the Marine Corps requirement. Our
    Unfunded Programs List includes a request for $678.7 million to provide
    funding for an additional 8 aircraft in fiscal year 2007 and advance
    procurement for 9 additional aircraft in fiscal year 2008, which would
    allow us to meet our inventory objective.

                         SELECTIVE REENLISTMENT BONUSES

        Question. General Hagee, like other Services, the Marine Corps
    relies heavily on bonuses and other incentives to meet recruiting and
    retention goals. As of January 2006, the Marines have obligated more
    than the appropriated level for selective reenlistment bonuses, and are
    relying on supplemental funds to carry it through the year.
        Could you explain why the fiscal year 2007 budget request also
    underfunds this program from its anticipated expenditures by $30
    million?
        Answer. The Marine Corps' Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB)
    expenditures have increased as a result of the Global War on Terrorism
    (GWOT). The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the SRB program is
    based on peacetime requirements supporting an end strength of 175,000.
    SRB requirements above the peace time level in fiscal year 2007 will
    continue to be paid out of supplemental funding as a result of the
    Global War on Terror.

                            RESERVE HEALTH BENEFITS

        Question. General Hagee, many of our colleagues continue advocating
    for increased health benefits for our reservists and their families.
        Is it your impression that there is an unmet need for increased
    benefits?
        Answer. The Marine Corps greatly appreciates the efforts of
    Congress to expand health benefits for our Reserve Marines. However, at
    this time, we do not see a requirement for any additional increases. We
    are currently working with DOD on the development of the implementation
    policy to support the increases offered to TRICARE Reserve Select in
    the fiscal year 2006 NDAA. As I'm sure you are aware, the mechanics of
    implementing and administering the various rules and regulations
    associated with all health benefit programs are very complex.
    Therefore, it is our belief that we should give these programs some
    time to develop and allow us to obtain some data on their impact before
    adding any new benefits or provisions.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Stevens. This subcommittee will reconvene on
    Tuesday, March 28 to hear from the Department of the Army. The
    subcommittee will stand in recess until that time. Thank you
    very much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., Wednesday, March 15, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., Tuesday,
    March 28.]

          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:38 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Stevens, Bond, Shelby, Inouye, and
    Dorgan.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             Department of the Army

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENTS OF:
            HON. FRANCIS J. HARVEY, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
            GENERAL PETER J. SCHOOMAKER, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary, General. We
    appreciate you bringing these young heroes to meet with us.
    We're happy to see them back, and pleased to see all of you
    here today.
        Our subcommittee today will receive testimony from the
    Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff. Secretary
    Harvey and General Schoomaker, we do welcome you back to our
    subcommittee, and I look forward to your testimony.
        As we meet today, we're still a Nation at war. Over 110,000
    Army soldiers are serving in harm's way in Afghanistan and
    Iraq. Our men and women in uniform are performing superbly
    under your challenging circumstances. And we're proud of our
    Army and are grateful for their service to the country, as I'm
    sure you are, Mr. Secretary and Commanding General.
        This appropriations cycle poses a number of important
    budgetary issues that will receive considerable debate and
    attention over the next few months. The budgetary challenges
    facing the Army include sustaining current operations,
    recruiting and retaining an All Volunteer Force, recapitalizing
    damaged and destroyed equipment, restructuring into a modular
    force, reposturing our forces around the globe, and fielding
    new technologies to the warfighter. I am told we have men and
    women in uniform in 146 nations as we speak today.
        A critical tool for addressing these issues is the Army's
    fiscal year 2007 budget proposal, which totals $111.8 billion.
    This represents a $12.7 billion increase over last year's
    enacted level. In addition, supplementals continue to increase
    Army spending accounts to pay for operations in Iraq and
    Afghanistan, as well as emerging equipment and soldier
    protection needs. The bridge supplement enacted just 3 months
    ago provided $31.1 billion for the Army. The current
    supplemental under consideration includes $34.5 billion for the
    service, and we're anticipating another supplemental request in
    the near future to help pay for operations during the first few
    months of fiscal year 2007.
        The large question is, Can we sustain this level of
    spending? History tells us we may not be able to do so.
        Mr. Secretary, General Schoomaker, the Army's going to be
    faced with many difficult choices in the near future. This
    afternoon, we're looking forward to hearing about your budget
    priorities and how you're positioning our forces for success
    today, as well as tomorrow.
        Let me turn to our co-chairman for his statement. We're
    proud and honored to have you with us.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
    join you in welcoming our Secretary, as well as the Chief of
    Staff, General Schoomaker. And I wish to join my chairman in
    welcoming our heroes. Thank you very much for your service.
        Last year, we noted that the Army was in the midst of a
    period of dramatic change while simultaneously sustaining a
    high level of combat operations. We continue on this path as
    you transform the Army with new brigades, including the
    Stryker, while maintaining a large force in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. And as the chairman noted, the cost of these
    efforts, both in stress on the force and monetary resources, is
    understandably higher. One might even question whether it
    remains affordable.
        There is great concern that the pace of overseas
    operations, coupled with the upheaval of transforming the Army,
    is placing a very heavy burden on our volunteer force. We are
    concerned how these two changes will impact recruiting and
    retention, and impact the cost of maintaining this force.
        In the supplemental request presently before the
    subcommittee, we find a request for $3.4 billion to support the
    modular brigades, and an additional $5 billion requested for
    fiscal year 2007. And we have been advised that there are
    shortfalls in your fiscal year 2007 request for recruiting and
    retention activities. At the same time, there has been much
    discussion about how the National Guard fits into the Army
    plans, and whether changes in the force structure or force
    totals are advisable. So, I believe it is obvious that the
    request before the subcommittee contains controversial matters
    which require our attention.
        I'm equally positive that this subcommittee will maintain
    its strong support of the Army and the men and women in
    uniform, especially during these trying times. So, Mr.
    Chairman, I look forward to listening to our witnesses discuss
    the many challenges facing the Army.
        Thank you very much, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you.
        Senator Bond, you have a statement?

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

        Senator Bond. Mr. Chairman, I have a lengthy statement that
    I will not give. I'll give a few highlights of it, and anybody
    who wants to, we'll have it in the record, where it can be
    read.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Christopher S. Bond

        Secretary Harvey, General Schoomaker, I join with Chairman Stevens
    and Senator Inouye in recognizing the tremendous responsibilities you
    have been given in leading our soldiers in a time of intense conflict
    where the stakes could not be higher for our troops or our Nation.
        I want to comment briefly on three issues that impact Army
    readiness.
        It is my understanding that the Army procurement account currently
    stands at 16 percent of the Pentagon's overall budget which is the
    lowest amount among your sister services. Resources are always scarce
    and especially so in today's environment--so tough choices remain for
    you and this committee as we sort through the Army's and the Pentagon's
    overall budget. I mention this because the Guard and reserve accounts
    are sometimes adjusted in an effort to identify savings. The problem
    arises when accounts are impacted without the full and substantive
    input of Guard and reserve leaders--your Total Force partners. I
    believe you ran into this head-on with the issue of National Guard
    force structure before the ink was even dry on the Administration's
    fiscal year 2007 budget.
        I join with my National Guard Caucus co-chair, Senator Leahy, in
    applauding you for committing to fund fully the Army National Guard at
    an end-strength of 350,000 personnel. If we learned one important
    lesson, it is that the National Guard Bureau is not the only member of
    the Total Force team. The Nation's Governors and their Adjutant's
    General also have a vital role to play in the defense of the Nation,
    both at home and abroad. If we fail to give our Guard leaders a
    substantive role in the decision making process you can rest assured
    that the Congress will hear about it and is prepared to act decisively
    when core programs are threatened.
        This morning I was advised by Lieutenant General's Blum and Vaughn
    that Army National Guard end-strength will reach 337,000 by the end of
    the month and will reach the authorized end-strength of 350,000 by this
    Christmas at the earliest and a year from now at the latest. Betting
    against the Guard's ability to achieve its fully authorized end-
    strength might be akin to betting against the George Mason University
    Patriots in this year's NCAA tournament so I'd advise you to watch the
    Guard's recruiting numbers closely so that you can ensure their
    accounts are funded in a manner commensurate with their end-strength.
        Late in December, Senator Leahy and I were successful in convincing
    our Chairman and Ranking Member to add $900 million to Guard accounts
    for homeland response related equipment. You will recall that the Guard
    was in some cases hindered from responding to all the calls it received
    for assistance--not because our Guard forces were not willing but
    because they did not have the necessary equipment. I hope, and trust,
    that the $900 million in funds the Congress added specifically for
    Guard equipment will eventually reach the right Guard accounts and ask
    that you provide my staff with an update on the status of those funds
    at your earliest convenience.
        On the topic of Army Transformation and Modernization, I am
    encouraged by the Army's insistence on sustaining the funding profile
    for Future Combat Systems. As the Congress reviews the relevance of
    specific programs and defense accounts it is imperative that Army and
    its industry partners continue to provide the Congress with updates on
    the overall status of the program to include both successes, challenges
    and failures. The level of sophistication and technology challenges
    resident within Future Combat Systems development is not without
    inherent risk. Yet failure to succeed in this endeavor is not an option
    because as we ask more from our soldiers it is imperative that we
    provide them with the most relevant, reliable and efficient materials
    for waging war on our enemies as possible. Future Combat Systems will
    translate into the decisive defeat of enemies and ensure that more of
    our soldiers return home. That is a goal worth pursuing.
        Finally, I have a question about Airlift and Logistical Support.
    The reason this is an area of concern for me is because portions of the
    C-17 are made in my home state of Missouri which is why I know
    firsthand about the issue.
        As you are fully aware, the Army is heavily dependent upon Air
    Force and the C-17 for its strategic lift. I am told that on Monday of
    last week in Iraq, C-17s achieved the millionth flying hour in
    service--which is equal to a cargo jet flying every minute of every day
    nonstop for more than 114 years. Assets like the C-17 are being used at
    170 percent of what was anticipated and they are carrying 80 percent of
    the cargo in support of the war on terror. Since September 11, 2001,
    the C-17 has flown 358,000 hours, or 59 percent more than originally
    scheduled, partly because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Air
    Force said in an article published March 6 2006.
        With the reliance upon the C-17 so apparent I am concerned that the
    Pentagon's decision to limit the size of the C-17 fleet is premature.
    Once we close the line, Army's options for airlift will be severely
    constrained because the costs for reopening the line are prohibitive. I
    cite a Commerce Department report that projects the cost for closing
    and then reopening the line at $4.46 billion. With national security
    policy, and particularly Army and Marines forces, dependant upon the
    principles of rapid deployment and force projection we cannot afford to
    cut corners and pursue logistical airlift capabilities on the cheap.
        It was reported in the November 2005 edition of National Defense
    that ``The Army did away with the C-130 transportability requirement
    and, instead, stipulated that three FCS vehicles must fit in a C-17
    heavy lift cargo aircraft. This would allow for a 24-ton FCS.''
        The article further explains that concerns over the weight of FCS
    vehicles under development precludes them from being transported
    realistically by the smaller C-130 family of aircraft because of the
    need to ``strip down'' these vehicles so they will fit into the smaller
    C-130 aircraft. I can site other articles that mirror the concern that
    the Pentagon's plan to close down C-17 production may be woefully
    premature.
        This leads me to my first question.
        Based on the Army's dependance upon airlift for rapid mobility, the
    high usage rate of the C-17, and the ability this platform has over
    other logistical aircraft to transport the FCS family of vehicles to
    remote areas not accessible by other aircraft--are you confident that
    the Army has sufficient C-17 assets to meet its future logistical
    support needs?
        I have one additional question that regards what I understand is
    the Army's desire to outsource its lodging activities but in the
    interest of time I will submit the question for the record and ask that
    you get back to me.

        Senator Bond. Mr. Secretary and General, I join with the
    chairman and Senator Inouye and recognize the tremendous
    responsibilities you've been giving, leading our soldiers. And
    we welcome those brave men and women back who have been
    overseas. I'm proud to say that my son also has just returned,
    last month, from a year in Fallujah.
        It's my understanding that the Army procurement account
    currently stands at 16 percent of the Pentagon's overall
    budget, the lowest amount among your sister services. As
    resources are scarce, especially so in today's environment, you
    have tough choices facing you, and facing this subcommittee. I
    mention this, because the Guard and Reserve accounts are
    sometimes adjusted in an effort to identify savings. And this
    causes some problems. It causes some problems with Governors,
    with adjutants general, and with, oh, about 80 of us in the
    Senate. And I was pleased to be able to join with Senator Leahy
    and applaud you for committing to full funding of the Army
    National Guard at an end strength of 350,000 personnel. And we
    look forward to working with you on Guard issues.
        On a topic of Army transformation and modernization, I am
    encouraged by the Army's insistence on sustaining the funding
    profile for future combat systems (FCS). And it's imperative
    that the Army's industry partners continue to provide Congress
    with updates, but it is certainly a very appealing and possibly
    lifesaving effect-enhancing effort.
        Finally, about the C-17, you know--we all know how heavily
    dependent the Army is upon the Air Force and the C-17 for
    strategic lift. I'm told that, on Monday of last week in Iraq,
    C-17s achieved the millionth flying hour in service, equal to a
    cargo jet flying every minute of every day nonstop for more
    than 114 years. They're being used at about 170 percent of what
    was anticipated. They are carrying 80 percent of the cargo in
    support of the war on terror.
        With the reliance upon the C-17 so apparent, and I--as an
    amateur, as an outsider, I'm very impressed with what the C-17
    can do, but I'm concerned that the Pentagon's decision to limit
    the size of the C-17 fleet is premature. If we were to close
    the line, the Army's options for airlift would be severely
    constrained, because the costs for reopening the line are
    prohibitive, and there is no other airlift that I believe gives
    you the capacity that you have there. And I will look forward
    to asking a question about that at the appropriate time.
        Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Senator Dorgan.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me
    thank those who are here to testify, Secretary Harvey, General
    Schoomaker, and others.
        I do want to just mention--I don't know that I'll be able
    to stay for the entire hearing, but I do want to mention one
    issue with respect to Guard and Reserves and the length of
    deployment. I think that, you know, a substantial number of
    Guard and Reserve have been deployed in and out of the Iraq/
    Afghanistan theater. And it appears to me now that when active
    duty folks are deployed, it's generally a 12-month period. I
    think the marines, it's 7 months. But the Guard in our State,
    when they are deployed, in--generally speaking, they are gone
    16 months--by the time they leave, go through the original base
    they're going to be assigned to and then get some training,
    then sent overseas, it's about a 16-month deployment. And these
    are citizen soldiers who have jobs, homes, and families. And
    it's sort of a paradox that they would have the longest
    deployment, because the Guard and Reserve, you would expect,
    would have the shorter deployments. So, I think my expectation
    is, that's going to have, and has had, a significant impact on
    retention. And my hope is that you might address some of that.
        I want to thank you, who represent America's soldiers. I
    think all of us on this subcommittee are determined that
    whatever is necessary for them to carry out their mission and
    to meet their responsibilities, we want to provide. We in this
    country, do not ever want to be in a circumstance where we
    would ask soldiers to go abroad and then not provide them
    everything that is absolutely necessary for them to do what we
    ask them to do for our country.
        So, let me thank you and hope, on behalf of this
    subcommittee, you will thank the troops, as well.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, we'd be pleased to have your statement. Both
    of your statements, we'll print in the record as though read.
    We leave it to you how long--how much time you take.
        Mr. Harvey. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, General Schoomaker and I
    appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to offer
    testimony on the posture of the United States Army.
        America's Army is the world's preeminent land power with a
    quality force of over 1 million soldiers supported by nearly
    240,000 Department of the Army civilians. An Army of Active,
    Guard, and Reserve soldiers deployed, forward stationed
    overseas, are securing the homeland, soldiers from every State,
    soldiers from every corner of this country serving the people
    of the United States with incredible honor and distinction.
        We provided the subcommittee the 2006 Army posture
    statement as our written statement, and I would like to take
    this opportunity to briefly highlight some of the Army's key
    initiatives and programs.
        General Schoomaker will also make an oral statement at the
    conclusion of my remarks. I know that this subcommittee, like
    me, appreciates the insight and unique perspective that General
    Schoomaker provides from his distinguished career of service to
    the Nation as a soldier.
        The soldier remains the centerpiece of America's Army.
    General Schoomaker will introduce to you three of those
    soldiers, here with us today, during his remarks.
        The 2006 Army posture statement is a succinct summary of
    the Army plan, which addresses the challenges of today, while
    preparing us for those we will face tomorrow. The Army plan is
    a comprehensive, fully integrated, strategic and operational
    plan which provides the roadmap to, first, build a more capable
    and relevant Army for the 21st century through transformation
    and modernization, and, second, sustain the full range of the
    Army's current commitments, particularly fighting and winning
    the global war on terror (GWOT).

                               ARMY MODULAR FORCE

        On 9/11, the Army's operational capabilities lacked the
    breadth and depth for the long war. We appreciate the
    continuing support of the Congress as the Army shifts its
    center of gravity to provide a broader portfolio of operational
    capabilities to meet the complex challenges of the 21st century
    security environment, particularly irregular, asymmetric
    warfare. For example, we have already completed the first 2
    years of converting the operational Army to a modular brigade-
    based combat force. Our objective is 70 brigade combat teams
    (BCTs), or, as we like to call them, BCTs, and 211 support
    brigades. This is an increase of 46 percent in the number of
    BCTs over the current force. To date, we have completed the
    conversion or activation of 19 BCTs to the modular design, or
    approximately 27 percent toward the objective of 70 BCTs. In
    addition, we started the conversion or activation of another
    18.
        Even though the modular force is not complete, it has
    already increased our operational capabilities and established
    the foundation for a rotational force generation model that is
    structured, predictable, and provides more combat-ready units,
    while reducing stress on the force.
        In order to sustain the current mission and continue to
    posture for future commitments, the Army needs the full support
    of the Congress for the Army plan and the Army's request in the
    2007 Presidential budget.

                             FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS

        Additionally, beyond the importance of maintaining full
    funding for the modular force transformation, we also want to
    emphasize the importance of full funding for the future combat
    systems program. This is a key modernization program for the
    Army, and is really the first major ground force modernization
    effort in over four decades. Although the word ``future'' is in
    the program title, this is not a program that only exists on
    PowerPoint slides. FCS is becoming a reality today, and
    spinouts of FCS technology to the current modular forces will
    begin in 2008.
        Simply put, the FCS program is the fastest and surest way
    to modernize the Army. Furthermore, it is the only way to
    effectively modernize the Army in an integrated manner.
        The FCS program and the modular force initiative (MFI), in
    conjunction with the full spectrum of other programs in the
    area of research and development (R&D), acquisition, training,
    leadership development, advanced tactics, techniques, and
    procedures, business transformation, as well as the growth of
    the operational Army, will ensure that our overall capability
    to conduct both traditional and nontraditional operations,
    including the global war on terrorism, will continuously and
    methodically increase and improve as we go forward in the
    uncertain and unpredictable 21st century.

                              ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE

        We also need to draw your attention to the importance of
    our efforts, with your support, to sustain an All Volunteer
    Force, including recruiting, retention, and providing a quality
    of life for our soldiers that matches the quality of their
    service. This is the first time in our modern history that the
    Nation has tested the concept of an All Volunteer Force in a
    prolonged war. Full funding and support of Army programs in
    this way is critical to sustain the finest Army in the world.
        Finally, I want to emphasize that the Army plan is a total
    plan to transform the entire Army--Active, Guard, and Reserve.
    2005 reaffirmed to the people of the United States that we are
    truly an Army of one. Simply put, the Army could not perform
    full-spectrum operations without the tremendous contributions
    of the Guard and Reserve. For example, last year the Army
    National Guard had 10 brigade combat teams and a division
    headquarters serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans for
    at least a portion of the year. Despite this overseas
    commitment, the National Guard was still capable of responding
    with 42,000 soldiers in a little over a week to support
    Hurricane Katrina relief operations. And, I might add, there
    were still tens of thousands more Guard and Army Reserve
    soldiers available, if needed.
        Based on the insights of 9/11, homeland defense operations,
    hurricane recovery operations, and lessons learned from the
    global war on terror, the Army plan shifts the focus of the
    Reserve component from a strategic Reserve to an operational
    force and rebalances the Reserve component's force structure to
    the operational skills they need for the 21st century security
    environment. For example, in the current plan the Army National
    Guard will continue to maintain a total of 106 brigades, which
    are beginning to be transformed to the same modular design as
    the Active Army. However, we are changing the organizational
    mix of brigade combat teams and support brigades based on the
    capabilities needed to conduct both their national defense, as
    well as their State, missions. In essence, the Army National
    Guard and the Army Reserve are transforming and modernizing
    from an underresourced standby force to fully equipped, manned,
    and trained operational-ready units.
        Let me close, and give General Schoomaker an opportunity to
    address the subcommittee, by saying that I remain confident
    that with the continued strong support of the Congress,
    America's Army can accomplish its mission and reach our
    strategic goal of being relevant and ready both today and
    tomorrow.
        Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, sir.
        [The statement follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Francis J. Harvey and General Peter J. Schoomaker
                                                     February 10, 2006.

        We have the confidence of the Nation as we continue to engage in a
    long struggle against global terrorism and the conditions that give it
    life and sustain it. Over a half-million active and reserve Soldiers
    have served overseas in the war on terrorism. More than 600,000
    Soldiers are on active duty today. Almost half of them are deployed,
    serving in 120 countries worldwide in defense of United States
    interests.
        While fighting, we are preparing Soldiers and leaders for the
    challenges that they will face. We continue to transform, to modernize,
    and to realign our global force posture. Our Army continues to evolve
    from a force dependent on divisions to deter and to wage war against
    traditional adversaries, to a force dependent on modular brigades,
    specially designed for the full range of non-traditional adversaries
    and challenges it will face.
        With the support of the President, the Congress, and the Secretary
    of Defense, we have developed and resourced a fully integrated plan to
    best serve the Nation, to deal with the challenges we will face today
    and tomorrow, and to sustain our volunteer Soldiers in this time of
    war.
        To execute this plan, we are depending upon continued Congressional
    leadership in three areas:
      --Obtaining legislative authorities to assure predictable access to
            our Army National Guard and Army Reserve Soldiers who have
            become, by necessity, our operational rather than our strategic
            reserve;
      --Expediting wartime acquisition processes needed to equip and
            protect our Soldiers; and
      --Of greatest importance, maintaining the support of the American
            people whom we serve.
        To continue to meet the needs of the Combatant Commanders and the
    Nation, the Army will require the full support of the resources
    requested in the base budget and in supplemental appropriations.
                                             Francis J. Harvey,
                                                 Secretary of the Army.
                                           Peter J. Schoomaker,
                           General, United States Army, Chief of Staff.

          PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE 2006 ARMY POSTURE STATEMENT

        The 2006 Army Posture Statement describes how the Army is executing
    The Army Plan to meet the challenges of today and to be better prepared
    for those we will face tomorrow. Focusing on the Soldier, our
    centerpiece, the Posture Statement summarizes key implications of the
    21st century security environment. This discussion provides the context
    to examine the Army Vision to accomplish our enduring,
    constitutionally-derived mission.
        The Army Plan consists of four overarching, interrelated
    strategies, focusing on people, forces, training and infrastructure. We
    explain our initiatives, accomplishments, and compelling needs as they
    relate to each of these strategies. We describe transformation, not as
    an end in itself; but rather, how it has helped us to accomplish our
    mission and to realize our vision.
        We conclude with a discussion of risk to underscore our compelling
    needs.

        This Posture Statement is designed to serve as a primary portal to
    learn about the Army. A listing of helpful Army-related websites and a
    glossary of acronyms are also provided.

                 2006 ARMY POSTURE STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        Soldiers are making enormous contributions and sacrifices while
    serving at the forefront of a long struggle of continuous, evolving
    conflict. Their presence has enabled historic elections in Afghanistan
    and Iraq, and is setting the conditions for democratic institutions to
    take hold. Our Soldiers are also preventing attacks on our Nation and
    responding to natural disasters at home and abroad, while sustaining
    the full range of America's global commitments. At the same time, to be
    ready for the challenges we face today and tomorrow, we are
    accelerating our plan to transform and modernize.
        We are executing The Army Plan to accomplish our mission and to
    realize our vision: to remain the preeminent landpower on Earth--the
    ultimate instrument of national resolve--that is both ready to meet and
    relevant to the challenges of the dangerous and complex 21st century
    security environment. Our plan consists of four overarching,
    interrelated strategies (Figure 1).

        This fully integrated plan is driving change at an unprecedented
    pace. We are becoming a more powerful, more flexible, and more
    deployable force with a broad set of capabilities to deal with the full
    spectrum of challenges we will face. Our improvements will enable our
    Soldiers to sustain the full range of global commitments which extend
    beyond today's current theaters of war. We are improving our ability to
    operate with joint and coalition partners and to perform nontraditional
    operations. We are also developing better ways to manage increasing
    demands for forces and relieve stress on Soldiers, their families, and
    civilian workers to sustain our All-Volunteer force.
        Four key ideas underpin our planning:
      --First, we remain committed to producing units that are ready for
            the challenges they will face and to overcoming years of
            underfunding prior to the events of 9/11. We have received
            unprecedented support to ``buy back'' much needed capability.
            We cannot, however, fool ourselves by maintaining large numbers
            of forces on paper that, in reality, lack the people,
            equipment, training, and support needed to accomplish the
            missions that they will be assigned. We are determined to
            support our Soldiers and their families with an improved
            quality of life that matches the high quality of service they
            perform for America.
      --Second, we recognize that intellectual change precedes physical
            change. For this reason, we are developing qualities in our
            leaders, our people, and our forces to enable them to respond
            effectively to what they will face. We describe the leaders we
            are creating as ``pentathletes,'' whose versatility and
            athleticism--qualities that reflect the essence of our Army--
            will enable them to learn and adapt in ambiguous situations in
            a constantly evolving environment. We have undertaken a major
            review of how we train, educate, assign, and develop our
            military and civilian leaders to ensure that our Soldiers are
            well-led and well-supported as they deal with complexity and
            uncertainty for the foreseeable future.
      --Third, reinforced by the American military experience of the 20th
            century, we believe that our Soldiers' effectiveness depends
            upon a national commitment to recruit, train, and support them
            properly. This commitment must be underwritten by consistent
            investment in their equipment and infrastructure. We remain
            acutely aware of fiscal constraints; however, our duty to do
            what is right for our Soldiers, their families, and the Nation
            remains firm and unwavering.
      --Fourth, we remember our position at the start of the long struggle
            in which we are engaged. After years of insufficient
            modernization investments, many of our units were underequipped
            and not immediately ready for deployment, especially in our
            reserve units. To meet Combatant Commanders' wartime needs, we
            pooled equipment from across the force to equip those Soldiers
            deploying into harm's way. This increased risk in other
            capabilities, as seen in the Army National Guard during our
            national response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. With help
            from the President, the Congress, and the Department of Defense
            through supplemental appropriations, we have addressed many of
            our equipment shortfalls. We still have much to accomplish to
            ensure force readiness and to mitigate risk.
        To sustain the current mission, posture for future commitments, and
    maintain risk at acceptable wartime levels, the Army needs:
      --Full funding of the Army request in the 2007 President's Budget and
            special consideration, in light of wartime demands, for
            avoiding any reductions to the Army's budget and program. In
            addition, supplemental funding is required for combat and
            contingency operations and to continue to reset, repair,
            recapitalize, and replace battle losses of equipment for
            several years beyond major deployments. Supplemental funding is
            needed to overcome the stress on equipment resulting from
            sustained combat operations in harsh environments. These
            resources will ensure that the Army is fully manned, trained,
            and equipped to achieve victory in the war on terrorism. These
            resources will also enable the Army to maintain the momentum of
            key programs, while accelerating transformation.
      --Funding to increase Army capabilities and overall capacity as well
            as support for the legislative authorities and programs needed
            to assure access to our reserve components--who, by necessity,
            have become an operational vice a strategic reserve. We must
            achieve a proper balance of capabilities and skills among our
            active and reserve forces and continue to build high-quality
            units to increase capability and ease the strain on our
            deployed Soldiers.
      --Support and funding to achieve critical recruiting and retention
            goals needed to grow operational forces. Meeting these goals
            for our active and reserve Soldiers sustains the quality and
            effectiveness of our All-Volunteer force.
      --Funding for the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program--to enhance
            current force capabilities today with ``spin outs'' of
            available technology--and accelerate more than 300 other
            modernization programs. Our most critical investment program,
            FCS will be the Army's first major modernization in over 30
            years and will better prepare and protect Soldiers for current
            and future threats. These capabilities will directly benefit
            our active and reserve components, all United Statesground
            forces, and our allies that support ground campaigns.
      --Full funding to maintain momentum in building a rotational pool of
            70 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and more than 200 modular
            Support Brigades and headquarters. Already well under way, our
            transformation to become a fully modular force is preparing our
            Soldiers to conduct sustained operations of the type we see
            today. In addition, our transformation is increasing the depth
            and breadth of our capabilities to prepare our Soldiers for
            tomorrow's challenges, particularly as we evolve to maintain
            overseas presence with rotational units.
      --Full funding for Army installations and support to execute a
            carefully synchronized plan to achieve a new global basing
            posture, while fulfilling the requirements of the National
            Military Strategy. This plan will make full use of the
            resources currently apportioned and projected to be recouped
            through consolidation and closings. Unanticipated costs
            associated with environmental remediation, renovation,
            construction, and other areas, may require additional resources
            in future years (a situation that will require continuous
            reevaluation). Full funding and continued support for Army
            installations and quality-of-life programs is required to
            sustain the All-Volunteer force, now being tested for the first
            time in a prolonged war.
      --Support for funding and authorities for Army Business
            Transformation initiatives to achieve targeted efficiencies
            through management reform, Institutional Army adaptation, and
            reengineered business practices. These initiatives will free
            human and financial resources for more compelling operational
            needs and accelerate other aspects of our transformation.
        A complete, detailed list of our Compelling Needs for 2007 is
    provided in Figure 2.

        2007 will be a pivotal year for the Army. We will continue to
    conduct operations while transforming the force, its global
    infrastructure, and all of our supporting business processes. The
    resources provided to the Army in 2007 and beyond will enable the Army
    to maintain the momentum of key programs, while accelerating aspects of
    our transformation.Moreover, this funding will determine our ability to
    continue to accomplish our mission and to be postured to meet future
    commitments.

         21ST CENTURY SECURITY ENVIRONMENT: AN ERA OF UNCERTAINTY AND
                                UNPREDICTABILITY

        In the four years since the terrorist attacks on the Nation, the
    international security environment has changed dramatically. As a
    result, military commitments and especially the demand for Soldiers
    have increased both at home and abroad. With the support of the
    President, the Congress, and the Secretary of Defense, we have
    increased our capabilities to deal with the challenges we are facing
    today and accelerated our preparation for those we will face tomorrow.
    Complex Security Challenges
        The National Defense Strategy identifies an array of traditional,
    irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive challenges that pose threats to
    the Nation (Figure 3). These threats are becoming increasingly complex.
    We no longer face only conventional armies who operate within clearly
    established political boundaries. In addition, we will face enemies
    that employ irregular tactics, terror, and asymmetric warfare. These
    enemies will be increasingly transnational and dispersed.
        Fueled by ideologies that oppose our Nation's bedrock values, al-
    Qaeda and other enemies are committed to reducing American global
    presence and to destroying our society. They have publicly stated their
    goal: to gain control in the Islamic world by establishing a unified
    caliphate, stretching from North Africa to Indonesia.
        We are engaged in a long struggle against adversaries who are
    ruthless and unconstrained in achieving their ends. Our previous
    conceptions of security, deterrence, intelligence, and warning do not
    adequately address the threats we now face. To defeat our adversaries,
    who will be neither deterred by nuclear or conventional weapons nor
    defeated in battles with decisive outcomes, we must remain vigilant in
    employing all forms of national and international power--diplomatic,
    informational, military, and economic--in a concerted, integrated
    manner.

    Increasing Complexity
        The security environment in which our Soldiers will operate is
    characterized by challenges and uncertainties, including:
      --Progress in the war on terrorism;
      --The pace of democratic reform in the Middle East and elsewhere,
            especially in fledgling democracies such as Iraq, Afghanistan
            and the emerging Palestinian State;
      --The ability of existing governments to perform traditional state
            functions and deny safe haven to terrorist groups;
      --Progress in controlling the proliferation of weapons of mass
            destruction to state and nonstate actors; and
      --Decisions in four major areas:
        --Defense priorities amidst growing fiscal pressures;
        --Roles and missions of the Armed Forces as defined in the
                Quadrennial Defense Review;
        --Role of the Armed Forces in defense support to civil authorities;
                and
        --Pace of implementation of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
                legislation and Integrated Global Presence and Basing
                Strategy (IGPBS) plans.
    Competing Fiscal Priorities
        The Army will remain engaged around the globe, while operating in a
    constrained fiscal environment. This will continue to limit the
    resources available to accomplish our missions.
                National Budget Trends
        The Office of the Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, projects 2007
    Defense spending will be 3.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP),
    continuing a downward trend (Figure 4). Defense resources have not kept
    pace with growth in GDP.

                Defense Budget Trends
        The allocation of Defense resources has changed over time (Figure
    5) in response to the focus and demands of the National Military
    Strategy. Today, despite providing the bulk of the forces for the war
    on terrorism, the Army receives the smallest share of programmed
    resources. Increasing pressure to reduce the federal deficit, coupled
    with rising fuel, health care, and other costs, may impact the
    resources appropriated to accomplish Army missions.

                Army Investment Trends
        The bulk of the Army's funds are committed to sustaining people,
    maintaining vital infrastructure, and preparing equipment for combat
    deployment. As a result, our ability to fund investment accounts is
    extremely limited (Figure 6). This creates a perennial tension between
    current and future demands.

    Investment Trends
        Since 1990, the Army's share of investment dollars has been
    considerably smaller than that of the other Departments (Figure 7).
    Consequently, the Army has been unable to invest in the capabilities to
    sustain a rising operational tempo and to prepare for emerging threats.
    Supplemental authority has enabled the Army to ``buy back'' crucial
    capability to meet the operational demands of the war on terrorism and
    to improve our ability to sustain the full scope of our global
    commitments.

    Implications for the Army
        The implications of the evolving security environment are clear.
      --The Nation will continue to be engaged in a long struggle of
            continuous, evolving conflict that, as in Afghanistan and Iraq
            today, will manifest itself in complex, traditional, and
            irregular challenges to include cyberspace attack. These
            struggles will be waged by Soldiers who will be expected to
            perform difficult tasks and create decisive outcomes to
            accomplish the objectives of the National Military Strategy.
      --Our Soldiers must be prepared to deal with the full spectrum of
            threats. As described in the Army's capstone concept for the
            future force, they must be able to operate effectively as part
            of joint, interagency, and coalition teams.
          Therefore, we must continue to improve the strategic
            responsiveness of our forces and our generating base through
            improvements in:
        --strategic agility;
        --joint interdependence;
        --speed;
        --survivability;
        --lethality;
        --sustainability;
        --networks to improve situational awareness and command of forces;
                and
        --information assurance and network security
      --Our Soldiers and units must be prepared to operate with little to
            no warning. We will no longer have the luxury of partially
            manning, equipping, or training a unit and relying on
            significant warning time to mobilize, train, and prepare to
            deploy. Rather, the units we have designated to be available
            for deployment will need their full complement of Soldiers,
            equipment, and training to be ready for immediate deployment
            from our power projection infrastructure.
        Failure to invest in Soldiers to build the right capabilities--by
    improving our doctrine, organizations, training, materiel, leaders,
    people, and facilities--will increase risk for the Army, the Joint
    Team, and our Nation. Building the capabilities required to hedge
    against the uncertainty of tomorrow will require prudent investments
    today. These investments must be sustained at predictable, consistent
    levels over time. Investing in defense capabilities in this manner
    would reflect a significant departure from historic patterns of
    spending, which have increased America's vulnerability prior to each of
    the major conflicts of the 20th century.

     THE ARMY VISION: RELEVANT AND READY LANDPOWER IN SERVICE TO THE NATION

        The challenges posed by the 21st century security environment drive
    our vision of the force we must become to continue to accomplish our
    mission. The Nation has entrusted us to preserve peace, maintain
    freedom, and defend democracy. We have performed this role for more
    than 230 years. Today, because of the actions of our Soldiers and our
    record of accomplishment, the American people regard the Army as one of
    the Nation's most respected institutions. We will maintain this trust.

                   MISSION: PROVIDING FORCES AND CAPABILITIES

        The Army exists to serve the American people, to protect vital
    national interests, and to fulfill national military responsibilities.
    Our mission is enduring: to provide necessary forces and capabilities
    to the Combatant Commanders in support of the National Security and
    Defense Strategies. The Army is also charged with providing logistics
    and support to enable the other Services to accomplish their missions.
    The Army organizes, trains, and equips Soldiers who, as vital members
    of their units, conduct prompt, sustained combat on land as well as
    stability operations, when required.

    Accomplishing the Mission Today: Sustaining Global Commitments
        The Army continues to provide Combatant Commanders with a wide
    range of capabilities to prevail in the war on terrorism and to sustain
    our global commitments. These capabilities include support to civil
    authorities in response to threats and crises at home. Our worldwide
    commitments extend far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. Today,
    approximately 600,000 Soldiers are on active duty (currently 487,000
    active component, 72,000 Army National Guard and 41,000 Army Reserve),
    with 245,000 Soldiers serving worldwide in 120 countries (Figure 8).
    More than 1,700 Army civilians serve side-by-side with them in the
    field. Our Soldiers and civilians perform a variety of missions vital
    to America's national defense. Here at home, more than 13,000 Soldiers
    are on duty specifically fulfilling critical missions to support the
    Global War on Terrorism.
        The Army's operational pace remains high, sustaining obligations
    and continuing trends established during the post-Cold War era. In
    addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, our forward presence continues to
    preserve peace on the Korean Peninsula, the Sinai, the Balkans, and
    numerous other places of strategic importance.
        Whenever and wherever needed, Soldiers continue to answer the Call
    to Duty. During this past year, Soldiers supported civil authorities
    during a variety of disaster relief and recovery missions. More than
    42,000 National Guard Soldiers; 7,300 active component Soldiers; and
    3,500 Army civilians assisted citizens in Louisiana, Mississippi,
    Texas, and Florida after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Active and
    reserve aviation units flew thousands of helicopter sorties. These
    pilots and crews saved countless lives while distributing food, water,
    and other supplies. Working closely with state and federal agencies,
    the Army Corps of Engineers provided emergency support and is now
    executing more than $4 billion worth of projects to support recovery.
    Soldiers also provided relief for earthquake survivors in Pakistan. At
    home and abroad, on a daily basis, our Soldiers and civilians are doing
    critical work in service to our country.

        In the four years since September 11, our National Guard has
    mobilized more than 329,000 Soldiers for both state and federal
    missions. On any given day, the Army National Guard provides vital
    capabilities in virtually every mission area. As of January 2006, more
    than 72,000 Soldiers from the National Guard are mobilized. Besides
    their commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, National Guard Soldiers are
    protecting the homeland by securing borders, protecting key
    infrastructure, and securing special events such as the Super Bowl.
    They also support other missions of U.S. Northern Command. They are
    preserving peace in the Sinai and in the Balkans. They are also
    establishing the conditions for continued progress in Iraq and
    Afghanistan.
        Since September 11, the Army Reserve has mobilized over 143,000
    Soldiers who, together with their fellow active and National Guard
    Soldiers, have enabled the Army to accomplish its mission at home and
    abroad. The Army Reserve provides vital capabilities across a diverse
    range of mission areas. As of January 2006, more than 41,000 Army
    Reserve Soldiers serve on active duty. The Army Reserve's 98th and 80th
    Divisions (Institutional Training) deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan to
    support U.S. Central Command's training of security forces.

    Major Decisions in 2005
        During 2005, the Army made four key decisions to accelerate change
    needed to win today and to continue to prepare for tomorrow's
    challenges.
      --Accelerated the Fielding of the Future Force.--In April 2005, the
            Army announced refinements of its plan--The Army Plan--to
            transition continuously from the current force to the future
            force to realize the Army Vision. This plan guides our efforts
            to transform the Army into a modular force, while continuing to
            modernize by fielding Future Combat Systems (FCS) and other
            technologies. We are leveraging recent combat experiences to
            train and educate our Soldiers and leaders and provide the
            campaign and expeditionary capabilities needed to deal with
            future challenges.
      --Restructured the FCS Program.--In April 2005, the Army restructured
            the FCS program for two reasons: (1) to improve contractual
            arrangements with industry and provide a better framework to
            manage the cost and schedule aspects of this vital program; and
            (2) to further leverage FCS technologies as quickly as feasible
            to improve our Soldiers' ability to fight and to protect
            themselves. By improving control and oversight, these new
            arrangements are paying dividends now.
      --Established the Business Transformation Initiatives.--In February
            2005, the Army decided to implement an Army-wide Business
            Transformation initiative. (We are reviewing all of our
            business, resourcing, management, and acquisition processes to
            become more effective, improve quality, reduce cycle time, and
            achieve cost reductions.) To do so, we are applying the Lean
            Six Sigma methodology. Just as we are leveraging the lessons of
            war to improve fighting effectiveness, we are applying relevant
            corporate best practices to improve our business processes and
            make best use of our financial, human, and materiel resources.
            Other key aspects of Business Transformation include:
            Information Management Systems Portfolio Management,
            Institutional Army Adaptation, and Business Initiative
            Councils.
      --Adopted the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) Model.--The Army began
            to implement the ARFORGEN model to ensure all units are fully
            ready for deployment. This model will establish and coordinate
            cycles of readiness and training for all active and reserve
            units. To sustain our ability to execute the National Military
            Strategy, this model schedules deployment windows for our units
            while balancing the requirements associated with transforming,
            modernizing, implementing a new global stationing plan, and
            other mission demands.

                 THE ARMY PLAN TO ENABLE MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT

        We are executing The Army Plan, consisting of four overarching,
    interrelated strategies, to enable mission accomplishment and to
    achieve the Army Vision over time. This plan accelerates the redesign
    of the forces, support structures, and headquarters that are
    accomplishing our mission today. This plan also guides our initiatives
    to provide the Combatant Commanders the assets to protect the Nation
    today and tomorrow.
        The Army is:
      --Providing relevant and ready landpower for the 21st century
            security environment;
      --Training and equipping Soldiers to serve as warriors and growing
            adaptive leaders;
      --Sustaining an All-Volunteer force composed of highly competent
            Soldiers that are provided an equally high quality of life; and
      --Providing infrastructure and support to enable the force to fulfill
            its strategic roles and missions.
        We are transforming to create a future force with a broad set of
    capabilities to enable our Soldiers to address strategic problems the
    Nation will face (See Figure 9).
        The benefits of our approach are clearly evident in the attitudes
    and levels of commitment we see in our Soldiers, as well as the
    attributes of our combat formations, the forces that sustain them, and
    the facilities and business processes that generate them from their
    home stations. The combined effects of transformation, modernization,
    innovation, and improvement--reinforced by positive change in the
    attitudes and behaviors that create the culture of our service--are
    helping us to become the force the Nation will need to safeguard its
    peace and freedom in the 21st century.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

     Examples of Unique Army Capabilities to Support Joint, Combined, and
                             Interagency Operations
    Countering Terrorism
        Assist friends, allies, or partners to conduct military operations
    by providing logistics, command and control, intelligence, protection,
    and other support to the Joint Force.
        Train military and security forces to counter extremist, radical,
    or insurgent elements.
        Provide ground forces (conventional and special operations) to
    sustain large-scale counter-terror and counter-insurgency operations.
        Rapidly deploy substantial numbers of ground forces from strategic
    distances to meet Combatant Commanders' requirements for counter-terror
    or combat operations.
        Conduct extended stability operations.
    Defending the Homeland
        Detect and prevent hostile actions against the homeland through the
    presence of the National Guard and the Army Reserve within states and
    communities.
        Support civil authorities in consequence management, disaster
    relief, and other roles including: reinforcing public safety and
    providing logistics, transportation, communications, utilities
    management, engineering, and other services.
    Shaping Choices of Countries at Crossroads
        In support of Combatant Commanders, establish relationships with
    foreign leaders, forces, and people through: security cooperation,
    training, humanitarian and civil assistance, medical, engineering,
    exercises, and other national and international programs.
        Seize control and defend key facilities or terrain to preclude
    actions by potential adversaries.
        Conduct expeditionary operations to deter, destroy, or defeat
    potential adversaries.
        Conduct extended campaigns to deter or prevent potential
    adversaries from engaging in protracted conflict with joint or U.S.-led
    coalitions of forces.
    Preventing Acquisition of Weapons of Mass Destruction by State and Non-
            State Actors
        Conduct irregular or unconventional warfare in support of the Joint
    Force.
        Deny sanctuary and safe haven for terrorist groups.
        Assist the forces of other nations to conduct operations against
    adversaries seeking to possess or transfer control of weapons of mass
    destruction.

        While the problems we face will evolve, Soldiers' ``boots on the
    ground'' will remain vital to our solutions.

        Source: Strategic Problems drawn from 2006 Quadrennial Defense
    Review, Office of the Secretary of Defense, February 2006.

                                    Figure 9

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        The Army Plan is continuously improving our ability to operate as
    part of the Joint Team, while ensuring our ability to dominate in any
    environment against current, emerging, and unforeseen threats. We
    believe that every dollar spent to build capability for our current
    force is an investment in our future force. Our initiatives are guiding
    our efforts to:
      --Grow innovative, adaptive Soldiers and leaders through training and
            education programs that build on recent combat experiences and
            leverage the Training Transformation Program;
      --Adapt the doctrine which guides how we fight, how we sustain our
            forces, and how we train Soldiers;
      --Create far more capable, strategically deployable brigades that are
            designed to receive new technologies and equipment as soon as
            they become available;
      --Increase Soldier and unit effectiveness and protection; and
      --Apply better business practices to free resources to use for our
            most pressing operational requirements.
        Our ongoing intellectual and cultural transformation is
    dramatically improving how our leaders, Soldiers, civilian workforce,
    and families are adapting to the reality of protracted conflict. This
    transformation is reinforcing the commitment to continuous improvement
    that has taken hold across the Army.

      PROVIDE RELEVANT AND READY LANDPOWER FOR THE 21ST CENTURY SECURITY
                                  ENVIRONMENT

        To support current global operations and prevail in the war on
    terrorism, we are increasing the quality and the effectiveness of our
    essential fighting units, the Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs). We are
    forming a rotational pool of 70 BCTs that will allow us to sustain
    global commitments, surge forces for unforeseen contingencies, and
    reduce stress on Soldiers and equipment. We are also creating the right
    mix of Support Brigades to ensure that our Soldiers receive the
    logistical, engineering, intelligence, protection, aviation, and
    communications capabilities they will need to support the Combatant
    Commanders.
        We are rebalancing the force by placing the right Soldiers with the
    right skills into our jobs and organizations in greatest demand. At the
    same time, we are stabilizing Soldiers, to keep them with their units
    longer, to improve teamwork and reduce stress on families caused by
    frequent moves between posts. We are maintaining momentum in
    transforming and modernizing our formations--through modular
    conversion, pursuit of future combat systems, and fielding other
    advanced technologies. These complementary initiatives will ensure that
    our Soldiers are well prepared to operate in campaign and expeditionary
    settings with our joint and coalition partners.
    Support Current Global Operations with Relevant and Ready Landpower
        To sustain a steadily increasing demand for military forces, we are
    building a modular force centered on BCTs. Our modular conversion
    across the active and reserve components is designed to meet the
    demands of the current war, sustain other global commitments, establish
    the organizational structure needed to accelerate modernization, and
    support a new global basing posture that will rely more heavily on
    rotational presence.
        Our plan will create a rotational pool of 70 BCTs: 42 in the active
    component and 28 in the Army National Guard. These BCTs will be
    organized into one of three standard designs: Infantry, Heavy, or
    Stryker. We will support these BCTs with more than 200 active and
    reserve Support Brigades. These Support Brigades will enable the BCTs
    to accomplish a broad range of missions. They will also provide
    essential capabilities to support civil authorities in homeland defense
    missions, including consequence management and disaster relief.
        Our Support Brigades are organized into two categories: Multi-
    functional Support Brigades and Functional Support Brigades. The
    multifunctional brigades will perform operational roles including:
    Combat Aviation, Combat Support (Maneuver Enhancement), Sustainment,
    Fires, and Battlefield Surveillance. The functional brigades will
    perform broad support roles on a theater-wide basis including: Air
    Defense, Engineer, Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Military Police,
    Signal, and others.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                Accomplishments
    Since 9-11
        Soldiers helped to overthrow two terrorist regimes, rescue two
    nations from oppression, and to liberate over 50 million people.
        More than 144,000 Army Reserve Soldiers, 329,000 National Guard
    Soldiers, and 498,000 active component Soldiers supported Combatant
    Commanders in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, the Balkans, the
    Sinai, and elsewhere.
        120,000 National Guard Soldiers and 31,000 Army Reserve Soldiers,
    along with active component Soldiers, helped secure the homeland
    through key asset security, special events security such as the Super
    Bowl, airport security, and Air Force Base security augmentation.
        Began 37 of the 70 planned Brigade Combat Team modular conversions;
    18 of these 37 conversions completed.
        Doubled depot output in just three years to refurbish and reset
    vehicles and equipment for future deployments.
        Extended the life of more than 4,000 HMMWVs and 1,200 aircraft
    through the reset program.
    2005
        Soldiers and coalition forces secured vital elections in Iraq and
    Afghanistan where millions voted.
        Two training divisions plus 4th Brigade Combat Teams worth of
    officer and noncommissioned officer leadership trained Iraqi and Afghan
    security forces.
        Soldiers trained and equipped 88,000 Iraqi Security Forces during
    2005, increasing their ranks to 224,000 in 136 battalions.
        Soldiers deployed to South Asia and Southwest Asia to provide
    tsunami and earthquake relief.
        More than 42,000 National Guard Soldiers; 7,300 active component
    Soldiers; and 3,500 Army civilians; complemented with Army Reserve
    aviation and transportation units, provided hurricane relief support
    (including Katrina and Rita).
        Deployed advanced systems to share information and improve
    situational understanding and command of forces for four divisions and
    three Brigade Combat Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Equipped most deploying units with the Joint Network Node to
    enhance command of forces.
        Advanced $2.2 billion contract for production of 368 Armed
    Reconnaissance Helicopters--the Army's first new manned helicopter
    acquisition since 1983.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        Like our theater commands, our corps and division level operational
    command posts and headquarters, Support Brigades will also be converted
    to modular designs. They will be trained, manned, and equipped to work
    directly for each of these headquarters without augmentation of people
    or equipment.
        We are also improving the readiness of our reserve forces that are
    making vital contributions on a daily basis--and have transitioned from
    a strategic to an operational reserve as our global commitments have
    increased. We are working to improve our access to these forces to
    support our strategic requirements. Access will be enabled by reducing
    reserve component overstructure and managing reserve Soldiers in ways
    that will improve assigned strength in each of our units, while
    increasing opportunities for education and special skills training.
    These improvements, coupled with modular conversion, will improve the
    Army's overall ability to provide ready forces and capabilities to the
    Combatant Commanders and to civil authorities in a timely manner.
        In addition, to make best use of our resources, we are both
    rebalancing and redistributing our forces. We are rebalancing to create
    the right mix of units in high demand, and Soldiers with critical and
    high demand skills in each of our active and reserve components. At the
    same time, we are redistributing Soldiers to create the right mix
    between our operational forces and our institutional structures.
      --To assure timely access to the right types of units and Soldiers,
            we are rebalancing skills within our three components. We have
            determined the types of units and skills that are in greatest
            demand in today's environment--including infantry, engineer,
            military police, military intelligence, Special Forces,
            chemical, civil affairs, and psychological operations units--
            and have identified over 100,000 positions to rebalance. We
            have accomplished more than half of this rebalancing and
            project to be completed by 2011.
      --To sustain increased global commitments, we are also increasing, or
            ``growing,'' the Operational Army in the active component. Our
            goal is to grow the Operational Army by 40,000 Soldiers by 2008
            (from the 2004 baseline of 315,000) to bring our active
            component operational force total to 355,000 Soldiers. This
            change will be enabled by military-to-civilian conversions and
            better management of our Individuals Account.
        The combined effect of rebalancing, redistributing, and growing the
    Operational Army is increasing our overall effectiveness. We are
    improving our ability to provide trained Soldiers in cohesive
    formations to the Combatant Commanders and to support civil
    authorities, while reducing stress on Soldiers and families.
        To support global operations while transforming, we are preparing
    our forces for war--or resetting them--as quickly and efficiently as we
    can. Our reset program is restoring units returning from war to
    required levels of readiness to prepare them for future missions. As we
    reset our units, we are simultaneously converting them to their new
    modular designs. We have reset more than 20 major units. Many of these
    units have already returned to theaters of war in their new
    configurations.
        The Army Plan introduces a new readiness model, ARFORGEN, to manage
    the force and ensure the ability to support demands for Army forces.
    ARFORGEN sequences activities for all active and reserve Army units to
    include: Reset; Modular conversion; Modernization; Manning adjustments;
    Soldier and leader training and education programs; Unit training;
    Employment; and Stationing decisions.
        To sustain global commitments, we will transition units through a
    progression of three sequential readiness pools: Reset and Train, Ready
    (eligible for deployment and exercises), and Available (immediately
    available for world-wide employment). This model establishes a plan for
    scheduled deployment on an Army-wide basis. Through semi-annual
    synchronization conferences, we will organize our forces into three
    Expeditionary Force Packages: Ready Expeditionary Forces that are
    training and preparing for potential future missions; Contingency
    Expeditionary Forces that are ready for employment or exercises but not
    yet deployed; and Deployment Expeditionary Forces executing assigned
    missions.
        Our goal is to be able to generate a continuous output of trained
    and ready forces that will support one operational deployment in three
    years for the active component, and one operational deployment in six
    years for the reserve component. At lower levels of demand, this model
    may allow the Army to support one operational deployment in four years
    for active forces. This new model establishes the basis to bring all
    units to a full state of readiness--with people, equipment, and
    training--before they are scheduled to deploy. It allows the Army to
    accomplish the following critical objectives: Reduce uncertainty for
    Soldiers, families, and the communities that support installations;
    Improve availability of forces for Combatant Commanders; Generate a
    continuous force of 18-19 BCTs, along with all required Support
    Brigades; and Surge up to an additional 15-19 BCTs in response to
    crises.

    Build a Campaign-Quality Modular Force with Joint and Expeditionary
            Capabilities for Today and Tomorrow
        The war on terrorism and the changing paradigm for maintaining
    forward presence have created both the necessity and the opportunity to
    accelerate change from the current to the future force. Our conversion
    to a modular force--one that is carefully balanced between active and
    reserve component BCTs, Support Brigades, and division and corps level
    operational command posts--is well under way. This conversion is
    transforming the Army into a more lethal, flexible, deployable, and
    sustainable force. It is enabling us to shift the center of gravity of
    our capabilities (previously focused primarily on traditional
    challenges) to better address the full spectrum of traditional,
    irregular, disruptive, and catastrophic challenges.
        The combination of transformation to build a modular Army and
    continuous modernization, to field Future Combat Systems (FCS) and
    other advanced technologies, is methodically producing the future
    force.
        FCS is our primary modernization program and most critical
    investment. This program will pioneer the next generation of
    warfighting capabilities which will improve Soldiers' ability to find
    and fight their enemies. FCS includes a new class of manned and
    unmanned air and ground vehicles, interconnected by a modern network to
    better support and sustain Soldiers.
        The program is currently in the developmental phase. The first unit
    fully equipped with manned ground vehicles is projected to achieve
    initial capability by 2014 (and will be able to fight by 2017). When we
    complete our intended fielding plan in 2025, new manned ground vehicles
    will replace 40 to 50-year old tactical vehicles designed in the 1970s
    to defeat Cold War enemies.

        A significant contribution of FCS is that it will immediately place
    advanced technologies into the hands of our Soldiers that will increase
    their capability and provide greater protection. By integrating
    advanced technologies into our formations in four ``spin outs'' that
    will occur in roughly two-year increments, we will strengthen our
    current forces in distinct ways:
      --The first ``spin out,'' on track for delivery in 2008, will
            introduce Unattended Ground Sensors, Non-Line-of-Sight Launch
            Systems, the Intelligent Munitions System, and the Network.
            These capabilities will enhance Soldiers' understanding of
            their situation in dynamic, battlefield conditions by promoting
            a common perspective of enemy and friendly locations on digital
            maps. This improvement will greatly increase the area that
            Soldiers can influence and control. The Network will also
            provide Soldiers with more timely Actionable Intelligence.
      --The second and third ``spin outs,'' are currently on track for 2010
            and 2012 respectively and will introduce new types of unmanned
            aircraft systems and ground vehicles for our Soldiers. These
            technologies will enable Soldiers to employ greater numbers of
            sensors to see and find their enemies first. These ``spin
            outs'' will also enable robotic reconnaissance of dangerous
            areas, mines, and booby traps. Together, they will increase
            Soldier protection and enhance the precision of their weapons.
      --The fourth ``spin out'' will complete the Network, currently on
            track for 2014. When completed, this improvement will reinforce
            the comprehensive efforts now under way to improve the accuracy
            and responsiveness of the joint weapons systems designed to
            support Soldiers.
        When whole BCTs are fielded with the full complement of FCS
    systems, these units will be able to generate significantly more
    capability. These FCS-equipped BCTs will contain more fighting vehicles
    and more infantry squads than the units we field today. They will be
    able to generate more capability and control more area with
    significantly fewer Soldiers than today. They will require less fuel,
    supplies, and other logistical support.
        These new capabilities will directly benefit all U.S. ground
    forces, including the Marine Corps and the Special Operations Forces
    from all Services. They will fundamentally alter how we deploy, employ,
    and sustain our ground forces. These capabilities will improve our
    capability to put ``boots on the ground,'' to stabilize contested
    zones, and to support joint and interagency teams.
        The future force comprises more than just FCS-equipped, modular
    BCTs. It includes all of the improvements in strategic agility and
    efficiencies that will result from implementing BRAC and IGPBS
    decisions. These decisions will enable the repositioning of forces to
    better respond to emerging challenges. We will also be able to execute
    much of our enduring overseas presence mission with units that deploy
    from the United States for overseas duty, during rotational windows
    scheduled and managed as part of the ARFORGEN model.
        For both rotational duties and for contingencies, our units will
    rely on pre-positioned equipment. To increase both strategic agility
    and efficiency, we are modernizing our pre-positioned equipment sets.
    We are also reducing the number of variants of our heavy combat vehicle
    fleet from four to two. This initiative will promote standardization,
    reduce the number of systems that we must train active and reserve
    Soldiers to operate, and reduce maintenance costs.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                Compelling Needs

        Full funding of the Army request in the 2007 President's Budget,
    plus the requisite supplemental funding for combat operations to ensure
    Soldiers are fully trained and equipped in the most expeditious manner
    to enhance current force readiness and to achieve victory in the long
    war.
        Resource the Army's requirements for resetting over 50 brigades
    consisting of over 350,000 pieces of equipment including: 615 aircraft;
    7,000 combat vehicles; and 30,000 wheeled vehicles.
        Support the Army's effort in 2007 to grow our operational forces to
    355,000 Soldiers (increase of 40,000 Soldiers), and restructure both
    the Institutional and Operational Army across the active and reserve
    components to meet global commitments now and in the future.
        Fully fund continuous modernization of the current force through
    the Future Combat Systems Program and key supporting programs,
    including increasing Soldier protection, sustaining development of
    advanced technologies, developing the Joint Network Node, LandWarNet,
    and rebalancing active and reserve component units and skills to ensure
    the Army remains the preeminent landpower on earth.
        Sustain momentum in force transformation through modular
    conversions planned in 2007--three active component and seven reserve
    component Brigade Combat Teams, 13 active component and five reserve
    component supporting brigades, headquarters and support units--to
    ensure the Operational Army has relevant combat power for the 21st
    century.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        Our commitment to being a learning, adaptive organization is
    evident in our efforts to apply lessons learned from our operations
    both at home and abroad. We are working to develop a future force that
    is better able to fight as part of joint and coalition formations in
    either protracted campaigns or in expeditionary operations and to serve
    the Nation--by examining how to best accomplish traditional and
    nontraditional missions through five major areas of focus:
      --Sustain the Force enables modular Army logistics units to better
            anticipate requirements and provide rapid and precise
            capability to Army, joint, and multinational partners. We are
            improving theater-wide distribution systems and visibility of
            all of the assets and resources, both deployed and in-transit,
            needed to support military operations.
      --Actionable Intelligence is providing Soldiers and leaders with
            expanded situational understanding by distributing intelligence
            with more speed and accuracy, while providing the means to
            improve understanding of different languages and cultures.
      --Improve Capabilities for Stability Operations is improving our
            understanding of how to stabilize areas of operation and
            support security, transition, and reconstruction operations
            while continuing to conduct combat operations.
      --Improve Contributions to Homeland Defense is focusing on balancing
            capabilities in the Active and Reserve Components to ensure the
            right capabilities are available to address expanded homeland
            defense requirements and broadening the options available to
            civil authorities.
      --Increase Army Capabilities to Dominate in Complex Environments is
            focusing on finding innovative solutions to challenges posed by
            operations in urban, mountainous, cavernous, and jungle
            environments while expanding Soldier ability and protection,
            and enhancing cultural awareness, regional familiarity, and
            language skills.
        The combination of transformation and modernization, reinforced by
    initiatives of this type, and continued improvements in training
    Soldiers, developing leaders, and improving facilities is producing
    relevant and ready landpower for the 21st century.
        Supporting Initiatives (Addendum C): The areas of focus discussed
    above are reinforced by six initiatives: Develop Operational
    Capabilities in LandWarNet; Execute Major Acquisition Programs;
    Restructure Army Aviation; Enhance Joint Interdependence; Stabilize
    Soldiers and Units to Enhance Cohesion and Predictability; and Leverage
    Science and Technology.
    train and equip soldiers to serve as warriors and grow adaptive leaders
        The Army Vision centers on producing Soldiers armed with the
    values, combat skills, and mindset that enable them to serve as
    competent, disciplined warriors who reflect our shared ethos. Our
    training programs, at our home stations, our Combat Training Centers,
    and across our institutional training base are leveraging our combat
    experiences to grow adaptive leaders who are highly skilled, resilient,
    able to thrive in rapidly changing environments, and ready to operate
    with our joint, interagency, and multinational partners. We are
    committed to continuing to equip our Soldiers with the best
    capabilities, weapons, and protection our Nation can provide--
    leveraging our national strength to reduce risk to our Soldiers.
    Reinforce our Centerpiece: Soldiers as Warriors
        Our Soldiers continue to serve magnificently as we enter the fourth
    year of the war on terrorism. They believe in their mission, the
    Soldier's Creed, and the Warrior Ethos. As evidenced by their service,
    they remain committed to something far bigger than themselves.
        In Iraq and Afghanistan, our Soldiers are consistently defeating
    the enemies of freedom.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                Accomplishments
    Since 9-11
        Adapted Combat Training Center training scenarios to match expected
    threats and provided enhanced training challenges to develop adaptive
    leaders.
        More than half of the observer/controllers at our Combat Training
    Centers have experience in Iraq or Afghanistan.
        Greatly improved individual Soldier protection. Today every Soldier
    in Iraq and Afghanistan is issued improved body armor.
        Continued to meet Combatant Commander requirements to up-armor the
    vehicle fleet. To date, over 37,000 light, medium and heavy tactical
    wheeled vehicles have been fielded.
        Equipped 49 Brigade Combat Teams and nearly 500,000 Soldiers with
    state-of-the-art equipment through the Rapid Fielding Initiative.
    2005
        Instituted the Combat Action Badge to recognize those Soldiers who
    directly engage or who are engaged by the enemy.
        Implemented standard 39 Warrior Tasks and Nine Battle Drills to
    initial military training for Soldiers of all military occupational
    specialties.
        Expanded training base capacity from 405,000 to 454,000 seats to
    enable growth in combat forces.
        Began implementation of new Officer Education System, including
    Basic Officer Leader Course and Intermediate Level Education.
        Used our experience gained in Iraq and Afghanistan to adapt our
    training bases and Combat Training Centers to provide enhanced training
    on marksmanship, fighting in urban areas, live fire convoy training,
    IED awareness, and working with non-English speaking allies.
        Increased ammunition production more than 400 percent to 1.5
    billion small arms rounds per year to adequately train Soldiers and
    meet operational needs.
        Participated in the Joint Task Force that developed technical
    solutions and provided critical training for ground forces to detect
    and defeat Improvised Explosive Devices.
        Began development of a new Civilian Education System.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        They have created the conditions to permit free, democratic
    elections and to reconstruct vital infrastructure and institutions.
    Like the American Soldiers of generations past, today's warriors are
    distinguishing themselves with tremendous acts of courage and valor in
    places such as Baghdad, Samarra, An Najaf, Fallujah, Tal Afar, Mosul,
    and Khandahar.
        Our Soldiers understand the Army's values and personify our ethos,
    demonstrated most poignantly by their willingness to sacrifice all so
    that others may live in peace and freedom. Our Nation must remain
    equally committed to them by providing the capabilities and support
    they need to succeed in their mission.
    Train Soldiers
        Our continued commitment to innovative training and education led
    us to enhance the rigor and relevance of Initial Military Training for
    new enlisted Soldiers and officers. Today, every Soldier, regardless of
    specialty, becomes a warrior first. To be better prepared for combat,
    all recruits receive advanced training in marksmanship and livefire
    convoy procedures. Current training draws from recent combat experience
    and emphasizes 39 Warrior Tasks and Nine Battle Drills previously
    required only of infantry Soldiers.
        Our commitment to medical training and readiness has resulted in
    the highest survivability rate in military history. Every Soldier in
    combat carries a new blood-clotting bandage and a new onehanded
    tourniquet. Many are certified as combat lifesavers through extensive
    training. These capabilities combine with highly-trained combat medics,
    tremendous improvements in medical evacuation, and world-class field
    medicine to save lives every day.
        We are strong believers in life-long learning. We are using
    information technology to enhance Soldier and leader education in a
    time of war. Soldiers participate in more than 1,500 online courses to
    improve job proficiency and to work toward civilian degrees. Our Army
    Knowledge Online websites average more than one million visits per day,
    allowing Soldiers and leaders to collaborate and to share information
    regarding the lessons learned from combat and from training.
    Enhance the Combat Training Centers
        Just as we have transformed individual Soldier training, our unit
    training has evolved to better reflect the complexity of modern
    battlefields. We have invested in our Combat Training Centers to
    replicate the complex environments--terrain, social, language, and
    culture--in which our Soldiers are fighting. Using these world-class
    training facilities, every unit conducts a Mission Rehearsal Exercise
    before deploying to combat. These exercises feature nongovernmental
    organizations, contractors, media, coalition role players, and hundreds
    of civilians on the battlefield. Similarly, our Battle Command Training
    Program uses state-of-the-art simulation techniques to replicate the
    realities of combat. This program trains deploying division, corps, and
    task force staffs who will serve as joint or coalition task force
    operational headquarters and includes information operations and other
    joint missions they might support or execute in the future.
        We are continuously improving training by providing a mix of live,
    virtual, and constructive training events. This cost-effective
    approach, which uses state-of-the-art simulation tools, improves
    Soldier and unit capabilities and links home station training to the
    joint team. The rigor that we are adding to our Soldier, unit, and
    joint-level training, is reducing risk for our Soldiers by improving
    our predeployment preparation.

    Grow Adaptive Leaders
        The complexity of the 21st century security environment requires
    more of Army leaders at all levels. As we have seen in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, Korea, Europe, across the Americas, and in peace
    enforcement operations around the world, the actions of individual
    Soldiers and leaders can have strategic consequences. To be effective
    today and tomorrow, we are growing a new breed of leader--one more akin
    to a pentathlete who is able to rapidly transition between complex
    tasks with relative ease.
        The future environment will demand that Army leaders at all levels
    be multi-skilled, innovative, agile, and versatile. Therefore, we are
    continuing to evolve our training and education systems to grow
    adaptive civilian and military leaders who are comfortable in leading
    during times of change and uncertainty.

        Recognizing that intellectual change precedes physical change, we
    chartered a task force to Review Education, Training and Assignments
    for Leaders. This task force, now six months under way, is drawing upon
    the ideas and experiences of the finest leaders inside and outside of
    the Army. The task force will recommend changes to assess and improve
    all Army education, training, and assignment processes to produce
    pentathletes.
        Unlike World War I and World War II, when the Army closed the Army
    War College, we have improved our leader education programs while at
    war. At the Army War College and in all of our schools, training
    centers, and doctrine development positions, we are placing recently
    returned veterans into key positions to enhance the relevance of the
    education and training we provide. We are also moving to fully
    implement a new Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC). Consistent with our
    warrior first approach, this tough, standardized, small-unit leadership
    experience is ensuring that all junior officers, in all of our
    branches, master the skills they will need to lead in combat. We are
    executing similar improvements in all of our officer and
    noncommissioned officer education programs. Our civilian development
    program is enhanced through our Civilian Education System.
    Equip Our Soldiers
        Protecting our Soldiers continues to be our highest priority. With
    great support from the Congress, the Department of Defense, and the
    President, we have delivered more than 37,000 up-armored vehicles to
    meet Combatant Commander requirements. Additionally, we continue to
    contribute to the Joint Organization established to defeat our
    adversaries' use of improvised explosive devices. (Figure 10)

        We are also exploiting the value of the Rapid Equipping Force (REF)
    to better protect our Soldiers. REF works in partnership with industry,
    academic, and military leaders to support Soldier needs as quickly as
    possible. It provides field commanders with readily employable
    solutions to enhance lethality and survivability. Often using off-the-
    shelf and developmental technologies, REF is enabling us to remain
    ahead of an adaptive enemy and to save Soldiers' lives. Examples of
    last year's successes include the deployment of digital translators,
    vehicle scanning systems, and robots able to inspect possible
    improvised explosive devices.
        A similar program to increase Soldier capabilities is the Rapid
    Fielding Initiative (RFI). RFI has equipped nearly 500,000 Soldiers
    since its inception. RFI accelerates the fielding of commercial, off-
    the-shelf systems to produce state-of-the-art capabilities. RFI
    provides a specific set of equipment to every Soldier, and a set of
    additional items to Soldiers assigned to BCTs. The Training and
    Doctrine Command is using combat lessons learned to maintain the
    currency of the items we supply. We plan to complete fielding these
    items to all operational forces by September 2007.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                Compelling Needs

        Support and funding to implement the findings of the Review of
    Education, Training, and Assignments for Leaders, examining all
    pertinent policies and programs with a view to creating military and
    civilian ``pentathletes'' able to lead effectively amidst the
    complexity and uncertainty of the 21st century security environment.
        Continue to support Army initiatives to sustain Soldier, leader,
    and unit training development and provide stability for Soldiers and
    their families.
        Continue to support the Rapid Fielding Initiative to complete the
    goal of equipping all operational forces (active and reserve component)
    by September 2007.
        Maintain funding support for equipment modernization programs that
    speed state-of-the-art force protection systems and weapons to our
    Soldiers in the field.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        Supporting Initiatives (Addendum C): The areas of focus described
    above are reinforced by three supporting initiatives: Support Joint
    Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO); Expand
    Cultural Awareness and Language Capabilities; and Develop Joint
    Training Capabilities.

     SUSTAIN AN ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE COMPOSED OF HIGHLY COMPETENT SOLDIERS
               THAT ARE PROVIDED AN EQUALLY HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE

        We owe our success to the versatile young Americans who answer the
    Call to Duty. This is the first time in our modern history that the
    Nation has tested the concept of an All-Volunteer force during a
    prolonged war. We are executing a full range of initiatives and
    incentives to recruit and retain high caliber citizens to man our
    active, reserve and civilian ranks. Caring for Soldiers and Army
    families through tangible quality of life programs provides a sense of
    belonging and sustains motivation for continued service. Improving
    Soldier and family housing reflects our commitment to providing a
    quality of life that matches the quality of our Soldiers' service to
    the Nation.

    Recruit and Retain the All-Volunteer Force
        We have maintained our All-Volunteer Army by recruiting dedicated,
    high-quality Soldiers and then retaining them well beyond their initial
    obligations. While the recruiting environment for America's young men
    and women is competitive, we will not compromise standards as we
    temporarily increase the size of the Army by 30,000 Soldiers. Our
    recruiting goal this year exceeds 186,000 Soldiers for all three
    components. This annual goal compares to about 140,000 recruits for all
    of the other Services combined.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                Accomplishments
    Since 9-11
        Exceeded combined active and reserve retention goal each year.
        Built over 24,000 barracks spaces and modernized over 9,000
    existing spaces through the Barracks Modernization Program.
        Privatized 59,500 sets of quarters at 26 different installations
    through the Residential Communities Initiative to improve family
    housing.
        Continued to state-of-the-art health care as they return from
    theater.
        Established a Well-Being framework to integrate, resource, and
    measure quality-of-life programs for Soldiers and families.
    2005
        Achieved 106 percent of the combined active and reserve retention
    goal.
        Increased recruiting and retention incentives programs.
        Assisted Family Support and Readiness Groups from company to
    division-level. Developed Virtual Family Readiness Groups.
        Implemented the U.S. Army Wounded Warrior Program (formerly
    Disabled Soldier Support System) to synchronize Army programs that care
    for severely disabled Soldiers.
        Established a community-based Child and Youth Services Program for
    child care, youth development, and school transition to support 160,000
    Army Reserve youths.
        Implemented a $250 million Barracks Improvement Program to upgrade
    substandard Soldier barracks.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        Last year was a challenging recruiting year. However, we finished
    strongly, exceeding the monthly goals for the last four months by more
    than 400 Soldiers per month in the active component. This trend
    continued into the new recruiting year in all three components. To
    achieve success this year, we have expanded advertising, increased the
    number of recruiters, and augmented numerous incentive programs. We
    recently initiated a new program, Unity of Effort, to recruit former
    members of the Armed Forces. This program features enlistment bonuses
    and, in many cases, reinstatement of previous rank. We are optimistic
    that our efforts, reinforced by Congress and the Nation's support, will
    result in meeting our recruiting goals for this year.
        The Army is retaining Soldiers at tremendously high levels. Since
    2002, while fighting the war on terrorism, we have surpassed our
    combined Army retention goals each year. In 2005, we exceeded our goal
    by more than six percent. We reenlist two out of every three eligible
    Soldiers who reach the end of their term of service during a given
    year. We are particularly proud that one out of every two first-term
    Soldiers decide to reenlist. In a time of war and a high operational
    pace, we believe this achievement is indicative of the high quality of
    leadership that our Soldiers experience in their units. Our Soldiers
    value the tradition of service to the Nation and appreciate the
    opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way.
        The continued support of spouses, parents, veterans, and the
    employers of our reserve component Soldiers plays a huge role in
    recruiting and retaining the All-Volunteer force. This support has a
    direct effect on the pride and morale of each of our Soldiers. In May
    2005, to recognize the role and contributions of key influencers in our
    society, we established the Freedom Team Salute Program. To date, we
    have received requests to commend almost one million spouses, parents,
    veterans, and civilian employers.

    Care for Soldiers and Army Families
        We continue to work to assure Soldiers and their families that they
    will be taken care of and all their needs will be met. Caring for
    families plays a vital role in sustaining a national commitment to
    serve and requires both the attention of leaders and the application of
    resources.
        Army Well-Being programs provide leaders a variety of ways to care
    for Soldiers and their families. We have integrated numerous quality-
    of-life functions into a comprehensive well-being framework that
    enables us to focus resources, measure success, and address the needs
    of an Army at war. Our objective is to sustain the fighting strength of
    our Army while providing for the individual needs of Soldiers and
    families.
        To assist Family Support and Readiness Groups at all levels, we
    have developed Virtual Family Readiness Groups. We have expanded child
    care programs on installations and in communities that have deployed
    Army National Guard and Army Reserve units. The Army Reserve
    established a Child and Youth Services Program to facilitate access to
    child care, youth development, and student support. The new Deployment
    Cycle Support Program helps families to understand and cope with the
    stress of deployments. Our Army Spouse Employment Partnership program
    has placed over 11,000 spouses in positions with major corporations and
    State and Federal agencies. We are currently working on a school
    transition program to help families and communities affected by BRAC
    decisions. These are just a few of the many ways that we care for
    Soldiers and families.
        Health care is another critical aspect of caring for our Soldiers
    and their families. The Army provides world-class health care for 3.5
    million beneficiaries, on the battlefield and at hospitals and clinics
    worldwide. To honor our obligation to care for Soldiers and families,
    we continually look for ways to improve health and well-being. The U.S.
    Army Wounded Warrior Program, formerly known as the Disabled Soldier
    Support System, provides sustained care for our severely wounded
    Soldiers. This program provides continuous and comprehensive transition
    and support services for our Soldiers until they are returned to duty
    or for up to five years after medical retirement. This program
    exemplifies our commitment to honor the Soldier's Creed by ``never
    leaving a fallen comrade.''

    Improve Soldier and Family Housing
        We are committed to providing quality housing for our Soldiers.
    Housing for single and married Soldiers has been improved significantly
    as a result of the Barracks Modernization Program and Residential
    Communities Initiative (RCI).
        To improve substandard living conditions across our installations,
    we committed $250 million to an immediate Barracks Improvement Program.
    As part of a longer-term Barracks Modernization Program, we will have
    funded 85 percent of our barracks modernization by the end of this
    year. We have programmed funding through 2009 to modernize our
    remaining barracks spaces. In addition, 45 percent of barracks for our
    recruits at our training centers will be modernized by 2011. Using
    vital supplemental funding, we also initiated a program to modernize
    the barracks used by Army Reserve and Army National Guard Soldiers
    during their annual training.
        Through RCI, we are providing better family housing for our
    Soldiers by privatizing 82,000 homes at 42 installations. This program
    leverages private investment capital to improve housing at a much
    faster rate than traditional methods of financing and contracting for
    military construction. When completed in 2010, over 90 percent of Army
    housing in the United States will have been privatized. We have also
    constructed more than 3,600 family homes and renovated 6,300 existing
    homes using traditional military construction.
        Improved housing, in barracks and quarters, provides Soldiers and
    families with a quality of life that recognizes their service to the
    Nation. These programs have a positive, enduring effect on Soldiers'
    morale, and contribute immeasurably to our ability to sustain our
    volunteer force.
        Supporting Initiatives (Addendum C): The above areas of focus are
    reinforced by the following three supporting initiatives: Continue Army
    One Source; Establish Multi-Component Family Network; and Execute Child
    and Youth Services School Transition Support.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                Compelling Needs

        Support and funding to achieve critical recruiting and retention
    goals. Meeting these goals for all components will ensure the quality
    of our All-Volunteer force.
      --Achieve an active component recruiting goal of 80,000 and retention
            goal of 64,200; an Army National Guard recruiting goal of
            70,000 and retention goal of 34,900; and an Army Reserve
            recruiting goal of 36,500 and retention goal of 16,900.
      --Continue support of Army initiatives to provide predictability and
            stability for Soldiers and their families in both the active
            and reserve components.
      --Full funding and support for quality-of-life programs to sustain
            the All-Volunteer force, now being tested for the first time in
            a prolonged war.
      --Support housing initiatives to provide quality housing for Soldiers
            and families at installations impacted by Base Realignment and
            Closure and the Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

     PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUPPORT TO ENABLE THE FORCE TO FULFILL ITS
                          STRATEGIC ROLES AND MISSIONS

        The infrastructure that the Army maintains plays a vital role in
    supporting the Joint Force. We are adjusting our global footprint to
    improve readiness at each of our installations. To free resources for
    more compelling operational needs, we are reengineering every one of
    our business processes. At the same time, we are completely
    transforming our infrastructure, consisting of installations, depots,
    and arsenals--and the information network that connects them--to
    reflect the deployment requirements and global commitments of the 21st
    century security environment, while becoming dramatically more
    efficient.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                Accomplishments
    Since 9-11
        Created the Installation Management Agency to unify the business
    structure of Army installations and to create uniformly high standards
    of quality for Soldiers and their families.
        Developed a strategic stationing plan that synchronizes decisions
    of Base Realignment and Closure, Integrated Global Presence and Basing
    Strategy, Army Modular Force initiative, and the demands and realities
    of the Global War on Terrorism.
        Optimized Power Projection Platforms to mobilize and deploy over
    500,000 Soldiers to support the Global War on Terrorism.
    2005 \1\
        Awarded the General Fund Enterprise Business System contract to
    enhance the management of financial resources.
        Planned and implemented an Army-wide Business Transformation
    initiative based on the Lean Six Sigma methodology to reduce the cost
    of the business side of the Army.
        Identified and began initial implementation of substantial
    structural changes to the institutional base of the Army.
        Implemented a strategic management system to measure Army
    performance and ensure optimum allocation of resources.

        \1\ Several continue into 2006.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Adjust Global Footprint to Create ``Flagships of Readiness''
        The Army is moving units and transforming posts through an effort
    that we call ``Stationing.'' In 2007, we will reposition major elements
    of our operational force (Figure 11). At the same time, we will
    establish the environmental foundation and initiate the renovation and
    construction needed to reposition schoolhouses, headquarters, and other
    support activities. Our stationing effort will posture our forces,
    logistics activities, and power projection infrastructure to respond to
    the demands of a complex, uncertain future as efficiently and
    effectively as possible.
        We have produced a plan that integrates BRAC decisions, the IGPBS
    plan, and the Modular Force initiative. This plan allows us to divest
    Cold War era infrastructure and create the infrastructure required for
    the foreseeable future. We are consolidating activities by leveraging
    information technology and advances in supply chain management. We are
    also completely reengineering our business processes to eliminate
    waste.
        This consolidation will yield tremendous savings over time. Our
    plan reduces overhead costs by streamlining the installation staffs,
    contract support, and infrastructure that will support units and
    activities at their new locations. We are exploiting this opportunity
    to become more efficient and more effective as we implement our
    stationing plan.
        Stationing involves more than merely opening, closing, or
    realigning functions. It requires balancing military, economic, and
    strategic necessities to determine the scope and timing of closures,
    consolidations, construction, renovation, unit activations, and unit
    deactivations. We have scheduled all of these activities to occur in
    ways that will enhance the flow of forces to and from current global
    commitments.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                         Major Stationing Moves in 2007
        1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division moves from Germany to Fort Bliss.
        212th Fires Brigade moves from Fort Sill to Fort Bliss.
        17th Fires Brigade moves from Fort Sill to Fort Lewis.
        Stryker Brigade Combat Team 7 activates at Fort Lewis.
        Battlefield Surveillance Brigades activate at Fort Hood and at Fort
    Bragg.
        Support Brigades (Maneuver Enhancement) activate at Fort Irwin and
    Fort Polk.

                                   Figure 11

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        Our stationing plan and requirements for funding, construction,
    renovation, and environmental remediation are guided by a set of key
    goals: Use existing infrastructure to reduce cost and excess capacity;
    Minimize use of temporary facilities; and Place priority on barracks,
    housing, motor pools, ranges, and training facilities to ensure that
    our Soldiers are properly prepared for the challenges they will face.
        While positioning the Army to better respond to the 21st century
    security environment, we are simultaneously working to ensure that our
    Soldiers and families enjoy the benefits of installations that are
    truly ``Flagships of Readiness.''
        The quality of our installations remains critical to accomplishing
    our mission. Our depots, training bases, and home stations enable the
    Army to: Build, train, deploy, and sustain our operational forces;
    Reset and regenerate combat power of returning forces for future
    missions; Provide homes, health care, essential support, and much of
    the quality of life that our Soldiers and families enjoy; and Provide
    the workplace for our civilian workforce of more than 230,000 people
    that is performing an increasingly important role in accomplishing the
    Army's wartime mission.
        Since 2001, the Army has made tremendous progress in enhancing
    training and generating combat power in time of war. Despite
    improvements, the Army still requires significant resources to overcome
    years of insufficient investments in its installations and
    infrastructure. We are committed to reducing our facilities
    recapitalization rate to meet the Department of Defense 67-year goal.
    If resourced, our stationing plan will produce installations better
    able to train and prepare our forces for future missions. Our plan will
    also provide a quality of life that our Soldiers and families deserve,
    and help to sustain the All-Volunteer force.
    Implement Business Transformation Initiatives
        We are fundamentally changing how the Army conducts business. Our
    goal is to streamline or eliminate redundant operations to free
    financial and human resources to redirect to our core warfighting
    missions. We are: Improving our processes to repair equipment and reset
    our forces; Reengineering our manufacturing and administrative
    processes; Outsourcing, where it makes sense; Seeking to make best use
    of economies of scale in all of our contracted services; Applying
    information technology to improve support and eliminate functions where
    possible; and Achieving cost savings in software and hardware while
    pursuing enterprise-level solutions in our networking practices.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                Compelling Needs
        Support to execute a carefully synchronized plan to achieve a new
    global basing posture while fulfilling the requirements of the National
    Military Strategy. The requirements of this plan (for renovation,
    construction, environmental remediation and other costs) will exceed
    the resources currently apportioned for base realignment and projected
    to be recouped through consolidation and closure.
      --Support Army efforts to synchronize Integrated Global Presence and
            Basing Strategy, Base Realignment and Closure, and stationing
            of modular units.
      --Support funding to achieve a 67-year facilities recapitalization
            rate.
      --Maintain support for 2007 military construction requirements in
            accordance with the Army Modular Force initiative, Base
            Realignment and Closure, Integrated Global Presence and Basing
            Strategy, and other Department of Defense guidance.
        Support for funding and authorities for Army Business
    Transformation initiatives to achieve targeted efficiencies through
    management reform, Institutional Army adaptation, and reengineered
    business practices. These initiatives will free human and financial
    resources for more compelling operational needs.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        Across the Army, we are reengineering all of our business processes
    to achieve greater efficiency, improve quality, decrease cycle time,
    and reduce cost. The method we are using, Lean Six Sigma, has already
    produced a marked improvement in manufacturing and repair processes at
    all of our depots within the Army Materiel Command. Once fully
    implemented across the Army, with full adherence to labor laws and
    other administrative requirements, we will replicate these successes
    across the Army in all our activities.
    Develop the LandWarNet Institutional Infrastructure
        We are investing in information technology at our installations and
    reserve component facilities to lay the foundation for fielding
    LandWarNet. The Army's portion of the Global Information Grid,
    LandWarNet compromises both infrastructure and services. It moves
    information through a seamless network to better support our combat
    forces and the institutional structures that generate them. Our
    information technology infrastructure will enable operational forces to
    ``reach back'' for data, such as repair part visibility, intelligence
    and other support, and innovations such as telemedicine. This same
    technology is improving our ability to manage business.
        Supporting Initiatives (Addendum C): The areas of focus discussed
    above are reinforced by three supporting initiatives: Execute Base
    Realignment and Closure; Improve Global Force Posture; and Improve
    Medical Infrastructure.
         balancing risk: the tension between current and future demands
        The Army has always experienced a tension between current and
    future demands, perhaps more now than ever before. Consistent
    investment in current and future readiness is needed to: Ensure that
    the size and mix of our components and capabilities are in balance;
    Enhance our global posture, agility, and readiness to conduct
    expeditionary operations on short-notice; and Organize, man, train, and
    equip our Soldiers to win today and tomorrow.
    Meeting Today's Demands While Preparing for Tomorrow
        The Army has adapted to fight the war on terrorism following a
    decade of insufficient modernization investments. At the start of
    combat operations, many of our units were under-equipped and not
    immediately ready for deployment, especially in our reserve components.
        To meet Combatant Commander requirements, we had to aggregate
    equipment from across the force to fully equip those Soldiers deploying
    into harm's way. As a result, we significantly reduced the readiness of
    many units to prepare others for combat.
        This readiness decision was especially evident in the Army National
    Guard during our national response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita. With
    help from the President, the Congress, and the Department of Defense
    via supplemental appropriations, we have been provided the means to
    address many of our equipment shortfalls and readiness requirements,
    yet we still have much to accomplish.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                     Army Actions to Mitigate Risk in 2005
    Operational Risk
        Funded our reset program to repair over 7,000 tracked and wheeled
    vehicles and over 550 helicopters;
        Completed the modular conversion of 11 Brigade Combat Teams,
    including one Stryker brigade that will deploy this year; and
        Implemented the ARFORGEN model to allow the Army to sustain a
    commitment of up to 18-19 Brigade Combat Teams with the ability to
    surge an additional 15-19 Brigade Combat Teams on short notice.
    Future Challenges Risk
        All tactical vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan that operate away
    from forward operating bases have up-armored or add-on armor
    protection. Nearly 2,400 tactical wheeled vehicles do not have missions
    off of forward operating bases and are not armored; and
        Restructured the Future Combat Systems program to ``spin out''
    advanced technologies to Soldiers as they become available, rather than
    waiting for total system fielding.
    Force Management Risk
        Continued modular force conversions, enlarging the pool of
    available units to reduce the stress on the force;
        Continued military-to-civilian conversion to free up Soldier
    positions from the Institutional Army to the Operational Army;
        As a component of the ARFORGEN, initiated lifecycle management of
    11 Brigade Combat Teams to keep Soldiers in units longer, improve unit
    readiness and cohesion, and provide greater predictability for Soldiers
    and their families; and
        Created a stationing plan to better posture the force for
    deployments and other global commitments.
    Institutional Risk
        Implemented business transformation initiatives to improve how the
    Army does business and consequently reduce cost;
        Awarded the General Fund Enterprise Business System contract to
    allow better financial management;
        Created a stationing plan to improve strategic responsiveness and
    invest in our most critical installations; and
        Invested in LandWarNet to improve each installation's ability to
    manage information and better support operational forces.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        To manage risk within acceptable levels during wartime, the Army
    requires:
      --Full funding of the Army request in the 2007 President's Budget and
            special consideration, in light of wartime demands, for
            avoiding any reductions to the Army's budget and program. In
            addition, supplemental funding is required for combat and
            contingency operations and to continue to reset, repair,
            recapitalize, and replace battle losses of equipment for
            several years beyond major deployments. Supplemental funding is
            needed to overcome the stress on equipment resulting from
            sustained combat operations in harsh environments. These
            resources will ensure that the Army is fully manned, trained,
            and equipped to achieve victory in the war on terrorism. These
            resources will also enable the Army to maintain the momentum of
            key programs, while accelerating transformation.
      --Funding to increase Army capabilities and overall capacity as well
            as support for the legislative authorities and programs needed
            to assure access to our reserve components--who, by necessity,
            have become an operational vice a strategic reserve. We must
            achieve a proper balance of capabilities and skills among our
            active and reserve forces and continue to build high-quality
            units to increase capability and ease the strain on our
            deployed Soldiers.
      --Support and funding to achieve critical recruiting and retention
            goals needed to grow our operational forces. Meeting these
            goals for our active and reserve Soldiers sustains the quality
            and effectiveness of our All-Volunteer force.
      --Funding for the FCS program--to enhance current force capabilities
            today with ``spin outs'' of available technology--and
            accelerate more than 300 other modernization programs. Our most
            critical investment program, FCS will be the Army's first major
            modernization in over 30 years and will better prepare and
            protect Soldiers for current and future threats. These
            capabilities will directly benefit our active and reserve
            components, all U.S. ground forces, and our allies that support
            ground campaigns.
      --Full funding to maintain momentum in building a rotational pool of
            70 BCTs and more than 200 modular Support Brigades and
            headquarters. Already well under way, our transformation to
            become a fully modular force is preparing our Soldiers to
            conduct sustained operations of the type we see today. In
            addition, our transformation is increasing the depth and
            breadth of our capabilities to prepare our Soldiers for
            tomorrow's challenges, particularly as we evolve to maintain
            overseas presence with rotational units.
      --Full funding for Army installations and support to execute a
            carefully synchronized plan to achieve a new global basing
            posture, while fulfilling the requirements of the National
            Military Strategy. This plan will make full use of the
            resources currently apportioned and projected to be recouped
            through consolidation and closings. Unanticipated costs
            associated with environmental remediation, renovation,
            construction, and other areas, may require additional resources
            in future years (a situation that will require continuous
            reevaluation). Full funding and continued support for Army
            installations and quality-of-life programs is required to
            sustain the All-Volunteer force, now being tested for the first
            time in a prolonged war.
      --Support for funding and authorities for Army Business
            Transformation initiatives to achieve targeted efficiencies
            through management reform, Institutional Army adaptation and
            reengineered business practices. These initiatives will free
            human and financial resources for more compelling operational
            needs and accelerate other aspects of our transformation.
        The Army is committed to producing units that are ready for the
    challenges they will face tomorrow and to overcoming years of
    underfunding prior to the events of 9-11. We have received
    unprecedented support to ``buy back'' much needed capability. We
    cannot, however, fool ourselves by maintaining large numbers of forces
    on paper that, in reality, lack the people, equipment, training, and
    support needed to accomplish the missions they will be assigned. We are
    determined to support our Soldiers and their families with an improved
    quality of life that matches the quality of the service they perform
    for America.
        Building the capabilities required to hedge against the uncertainty
    of tomorrow will require prudent investments today. These investments
    must be sustained at predictable, consistent levels over time--a
    departure from historic patterns of spending which have increased our
    Nation's vulnerability at the outset of each of the major conflicts of
    the 20th century. As George Washington stated, ``To be prepared for war
    is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.'' Consistency
    in funding, even as the war on terrorism ebbs and flows, is absolutely
    essential to the Army's ability to preserve peace and freedom for the
    Nation.
                  preserving peace and freedom for the nation
        Guided by the Army Vision, we are accomplishing our mission today
    while building the future force--of Soldiers, leaders, modular forces
    and institutional support structures--to do so tomorrow.
        We remain resolute in our determination to preserve peace and
    freedom for America. To identify, learn, and adapt to new challenges,
    we continue to focus on tough questions that will remain at the center
    of the defense debate:
      --What are the strategic requirements of the 21st century? What
            decisions must we make now to fulfill our Title 10 obligation
            to ensure the Army, as part of the Nation's Armed Forces, is
            best prepared to defend U.S. interests in the face of
            traditional, irregular, catastrophic and disruptive challenges?
      --How can we best prepare our leaders to become multi-skilled
            ``pentathletes'' able to operate confidently and successfully
            amidst the challenges and uncertainties we will face?
      --Are joint land forces (Army, Marines, and Special Operations
            Forces) properly sized, structured, trained, and oriented to
            provide the capabilities needed to perform the missions that
            the Nation will require?
      --What additional actions are required to ensure that our forces are
            organized, trained, manned, and equipped to be relevant to, and
            ready for, the challenges they will face?
      --How do we ensure that our physical infrastructure (installations,
            depots, arsenals, and the network that connects them) best
            support our mission? How do we balance our resources to:
            Provide quality of life to sustain our volunteer force;
            maintain deployment facilities (air, ground, sea, rail, cargo,
            and other facilities) to support Combatant Commanders'
            timelines; and establish a training base to prepare our
            Soldiers and units for the challenges they will face?
      --How can we best leverage the human and financial resources we have
            been provided to ensure that we remain the world's preeminent
            landpower--ready to meet and relevant to, in capabilities and
            mindset, the challenges we will face?
      --What will be the impact of protracted conflict on the All-Volunteer
            force? What combination of quality of life, compensation,
            incentives, service options, and other tools will be required
            to recruit, retain, and sustain the concept of the All-
            Volunteer force for the future?
        With the support of the President, the Congress, and the Department
    of Defense, we are developing the capabilities and the capacity to
    sustain our global commitments and to prevail in the war on terrorism.
    We need your continued support to meet the needs of the Combatant
    Commanders and our Soldiers, who answer the Call to Duty by
    volunteering to serve the Nation in this time of war.
                                    Acronyms
        AC--Active Component
        ARFORGEN--Army Force Generation
        ARNG--Army National Guard
        ASEP--Army Spouse Employment Partnership
        AW2--U.S. Army Wounded Warrior Program
        BCT--Brigade Combat Team
        BOLC--Basic Officer Leader Course
        BRAC--Base Realignment and Closure
        CBRNE--Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and High Yield
    Explosives
        CTC--Combat Training Center
        DOD--Department of Defense
        FCS--Future Combat Systems
        FTS--Full Time Support
        FY--Fiscal Year
        GBIAD--Ground Based Integrated Air Defense
        GDP--Gross Domestic Product
        HMMWV--High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle
        IED--Improvised Explosive Device
        IGPBS--Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy
        JIEDDO--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization
        JTF--Joint Task Force
        MFO--Multinational Force and Observers
        NDAA--National Defense Authorization Act
        OEF--Operation Enduring Freedom
        OIF--Operation Iraqi Freedom
        O&M--Operations and Maintenance
        QDR--Quadrennial Defense Review
        RC--Reserve Component
        RCI--Residential Communities Initiative
        RDA--Research, Development, and Acquisition
        REF--Rapid Equipping Force
        RFI--Rapid Fielding Initiative
        SAPI--Small Arms Protective Inserts
        SBCT--Stryker Brigade Combat Team
        TOA--Total Obligation Authority
        UAS--Unmanned Aerial Systems
        USAR--United States Army Reserve
        WMD--Weapons of Mass Destruction
                       Addendum I (Helpful Army Websites)
        The following websites provide greater information on various
    topics:
        The Army Website: This site is the most visited military website in
    the world, averaging about 7 million visitors per month or 250 hits per
    second. It provides news, features, imagery, and references.
            http://www.army.mil
        The Army National Guard: Provides information about the Army
    National Guard.
            http://www.arng.army.mil
        The United States Army Reserve: Provides information about the Army
    Reserve.
            http://www.armyreserve.army.mil/usar/home
        Army Families Online: This site provides information and links to
    other support programs that support our Soldiers and their families.
            http://www.armyfamiliesonline.org
        Wounded Warrior Program: This site provides information on the
    Army's Wounded Warrior Program which provides support for severely
    wounded Soldiers and their families. It can be found through the Army
    Families Online website at
            http://www.armyfamiliesonline.org
        Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, G-1: For information on
    personnel issues.
            http://www.armyg1.army.mil
        Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, G-4: For information on Army
    logistics.
            http://www.hqda.army.mil/logweb
        Chief Information Officer, G-6: For information on Army Information
    Management.
            http://www.army.mil/ciog6
        Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs, G-8: For information on
    materiel integration.
            http://www.g8.army.mil
        Future Combat Systems: For information on the Future Combat Systems
    program.
            http://www.army.mil/fcs
        Army Logistics Transformation Agency: For information on Army
    logistics transformation.
            http://www.lta.army.mil
        Army Medicine: For information on Army medical programs.
            http://www.armymedicine.army.mil
        Army Posture Statement: For the web-based version of this year's
    Army Posture Statement and previous years versions.
            http://www.army.mil/aps
        Army Modernization Plan: Provides a detailed overview of the Army's
    organizational and materiel modernization efforts.
            http://www.army.mil/features/MODPlan/2005
           Addendum J: Additional Information on Army Related Topics
        We have provided additional information on the following topics in
    the CD-ROM and web-based versions of the 2006 Army Posture Statement.
    They are available as in-text links and may be accessed through this
    addendum either on the CD-ROM or the Web.

        Actionable Intelligence
        Active Component/Reserve Component Rebalance
        Adapting the Major Army Command Structure
        Add-on Armor for Tactical Wheeled Vehicles
        Army Barracks Modernization Program
        Army Capabilities to Dominate in Complex Environments
        Army Career Intern Program
        Army Community Service
        Army Energy Strategy for Installations
        Army Environmental Programs
        Army One Source
        Army Prepositioned Stocks
        Army Reserve
      --All-Volunteer Force and the Army Reserve
      --Army Reserve Child and Youth Services Program
      --Army Reserve Education Services
      --Army Reserve Employer Relations
      --Army Reserve Facility Management Transformation
      --Full-Time Support Revalidation
      --Regional Personnel Service Centers
      --Reserve Components Separate Competitive Categories for Officer
            Promotions
      --Selected Reserve Incentive Program
      --Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program
      --Trainees, Transients, Holdees and Students Account
      --Voluntary Selective Continuation of Alerted and Mobilized Selected
            Reserve Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels
        Army Retention Program
        Army Spouse Employment Partnership
        Army Well-Being
        Army's Capstone Concept for the Future Force
        Base Realignment and Closure Decisions for the Army in 2005
        Basic Officer Leader Course
        Battle Command
        Business Transformation
        Campaign Quality Force
        Child and Youth Services School Transition Support
        Civilian Aides to the Secretary of the Army Program
        Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction
        Combined Force Interoperability through Security Cooperation
        Concept Development and Experimentation
        Cultural Awareness and Language Capabilities
        Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System
        Defense Support to Civil Authorities
      --Avian Flu Pandemic Preparation
      --Establishment of Army Forces North
      --Hurricane Katrina Response
      --Special Events for 2005
        Deployment Cycle Support Program
        Expeditionary Capabilities
        Freedom Team Salute
        Future Combat Systems
        Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicle Development
        Global Force Posture
        Information Assurance and Network Security
        Installation Design Standards
        Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy
        Interceptor Body Armor
        Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization
        Joint Interdependency
        Joint National Training Capabilities
        Joint Tactical Radio System
        LandWarNet and the Global Information Grid
        Life Cycle Management Initiative
        Live, Virtual, Constructive Training Environment Integration
        Major Acquisition Programs
      --Future Combat Systems
      --Black Hawk Utility Helicopter
      --Medium Extended Air Defense System
      --Chinook Cargo Helicopter
      --Longbow Apache Attack Helicopter
        Medical and Dental Readiness
        Medical Infrastructure Requirements for Army Transformation
        Military-to-Civilian Conversions
        Modular Conversion
        Modular Force
        Multi-Component Family Network
        Naming Convention Decisions
        National Security Personnel System
        Rapid Equipping Force
        Rapid Fielding Initiative
        Recruiting an All-Volunteer Force
        Red Team Education and Training
        Reset
        Residential Communities Initiative
        Restructuring Army Aviation
        Review of Education, Training, and Assignments for Leaders
        Science and Technology
        Soldier's Creed
        Spiraling Technology into the Current Force
        Stability Operations Capabilities
        Stabilizing Soldiers and Units to Enhance Cohesion and
    Predictability
        Sustainable Range Program
        Sustaining the Force
        U.S. Army Combat Training Center Program
        U.S. Army Wounded Warrior Program
        Unity of Effort
        Up-Armored Vehicle Program
        Utilities Privatization
        Virtual Family Readiness Group
        Warfighter Information Network--Tactical
        Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills

        Senator Stevens. General Schoomaker, we'd be happy to have
    your statement.

                    STATEMENT OF GENERAL PETER J. SCHOOMAKER

        General Schoomaker. Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye and
    other distinguished members of the subcommittee, it's a
    pleasure to be with you today.
        I'm going to limit my opening statements to some
    introductions, if I might. But I would like to start out by
    telling you, again, how proud I am to be able to serve with
    these great soldiers and their family members that we have
    today.
        And, in direct answer to Senator Dorgan, which I'd be glad
    to expound upon later, if you want, we now, after 4 years at
    war, which is, by the way, longer than World War II--we now
    have deployed approximately 52 percent of our regular force.
    And we are doing a study to look at the Reserve forces, as
    well, to figure it out.

                                   RETENTION

        Of those soldiers that we have deployed overseas on either
    Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or Operation Enduring Freedom
    (OEF), 75 percent--in excess of 75 percent of those soldiers
    that have deployed have re-enlisted and are remaining in the
    current Army. As you look at the deployments increasing--yeah,
    this sounds counterintuitive, but as they increase, so does the
    percentage of those that remain, all the way up to--I have
    charts here that--from the study that indicates that we have
    soldiers--for instance, soldiers on their fifth deployment, 93
    percent of them have remained in the Army. So, there is a
    dynamic taking place here that's extraordinary, in my view,
    that speaks very well to the dedication of these soldiers and
    their professionalism.
        I also believe it talks to the effect of our
    transformational efforts to balance the Army and to achieve
    some predictability and increased readiness in the force as we
    go forward. So, I'd be glad to talk more to that later.
        I would like to introduce those that are present with us
    today that I think we should recognize for your situational
    awareness. First of all, we have Lieutenant General Clyde
    Vaughn, all the way to the right, who is the Director of the
    Army National Guard, and Lieutenant General Steve Blum, who is
    the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. Next to Steve is
    Lieutenant General Ron Helmly, who is the Chief of the Army
    Reserve. You all recognize yourself there, so that--then
    directly behind me--I know they're posted all over all the post
    offices around the country, so you probably recognize them--
    somebody not in the post office, but they should be, is
    Lieutenant General Jerry Sinn, who is directly behind me. He is
    the military deputy for the Army Budget, who is very, very
    important to us.
        I would--it's with a great deal of pleasure that I now
    introduce three soldiers, one Active, one Guard, one Reserve.
    And these soldiers are typical and representative of those
    soldiers that we've got serving in our great Army. And I'd like
    to start with Sergeant Billie Grimes, who is sitting here. Some
    of you may have seen her on the cover of Time magazine. She's
    the center soldier. She is a combat medic. And she served,
    previously, 4 years in the Army Reserve. She's now on active
    duty, serving at the Army--U.S. Army Medical Research Institute
    of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) up at Fort Detrick, up where
    we have USAMRIID.
        Now, Sergeant Grimes was serving on OIF with the 1st Armor
    Division, and is the young combat medic that saved the life of
    the Time reporter who lost a portion of his arm and his hand to
    a grenade attack, where she responded very quickly. She was
    part of the 501st Forward Support Battalion who was supporting
    a field artillery unit there that was doing duties in Baghdad.
    And as Senator Inouye pointed out, not only is she the proud
    recipient and wearer of the Combat Medical Badge, which is like
    the Combat Infantry Badge. I mean, it's a very, very highly
    respected badge. She also has three Army commendation medals
    (ARCOMs). And you'll notice, as Senator Inouye pointed out, she
    also has a Good Conduct Medal, which most of us don't get to
    earn, because we're not enlisted solders--but, anyway, we're
    very proud of Sergeant Grimes and her service.
        Next to her is Staff Sergeant Sean M. Boiko. And Sergeant
    Boiko is from Van Nuys, California, a member of the Army
    Reserve. And he is an MP, a 31 Bravo, one of the most deployed
    Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), just like Sergeant
    Grimes' MOS, 91 Whiskey. Currently, he is in the community-
    based healthcare system program at Fort Meade, Maryland, where
    he is working to overcome his wounds so that he can remain in
    the Army.
        You'll notice he wears the Purple Heart, the ARCOM, and the
    Combat Action Badge. Sergeant Boiko was a member of an eight-
    man Military Transition Team (MiTT), which is our military
    transition teams that are training the Iraqi army. And he was
    stationed between Fallujah and Ramadi in some tough country in
    al Anbar Province, where he came under attack by an improvised
    explosive device (IED) and ended up being evacuated for his
    injuries. He had injuries to his left arm, hearing loss, and
    very severely herniated disks in his back. And he's now been
    through about 6 months of rehabilitation, and they feel that,
    within the next several months, that he will be able to achieve
    the standards to remain in the Army, which is his desire to do.
    We're very proud of him, as well.
        You'll notice he wears a 2nd Marine Division patch on his
    right shoulder because that's who he was supporting out there.
        Thank you, Sergeant Boiko.
        Now, this last fellow is Specialist Jason Mike, and he's
    from Radcliff, Kentucky. He's in the Kentucky Army National
    Guard. He also is a medic. Notice he's wearing the Combat
    Action Badge. And he was with a Military Police (MP) Company
    that was on Route Tampa during OIF3, where he ended up in an
    action that has become well known. This was a convoy of about
    30 trucks that was ambushed by over 50 insurgents. And his MP
    platoon responded, and they got into about a 45-minute
    firefight.
        Now, what's interesting is, you'll notice he's kind of
    built like a football player, and that's because he was. He was
    a fullback. And so, in the middle of this action, Specialist
    Mike ends up with a squad automatic weapon in one arm, and a M-
    4 carbine in the other hand, fighting in both directions at the
    same time in his trench line, where, after having killed 27
    anti-Iraqi-force insurgents, wounding six, capturing one, and
    after firing an anti-tank weapon at one of the strongholds that
    they had, he then turned to treating the wounded there, and, as
    a result, was awarded the Silver Star for his actions.
        So, again, we're very, very proud of him and what he
    represents.
        I will wrap up, saying that we have submitted a posture
    statement for the record, which is our formal statement. I
    stand behind the Secretary and his statement, and, again, stand
    prepared to answer your questions.
        Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, General.
        Without objection, we'll set our time limit at about 7
    minutes.
        Mr. Secretary and General, I'm going to have to go back and
    make a statement on the floor here before the hour is out, so
    the co-chairman will conduct the hearing.

                      ARMY NATIONAL GUARD FORCE STRUCTURE

        Mr. Secretary, the budget for the Army now reflects an Army
    National Guard strength at 333,000 soldiers. We were told, the
    press reported, that we're going to be 350,000 soldiers. And
    then there was reduction. And 75 Senators, including ourselves,
    signed a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld about the importance of
    the National Guard. And I understand there's now been a
    decision to keep the 350,000. But we haven't had a budget
    amendment to cover them. How are we going to pay for them?
        Mr. Harvey. Our original plan, as you noted, Senator, was
    to fund the National Guard at whatever level they could recruit
    and retain. So, for the last 14 or 15 months, that's been on
    the average of 333,000, with the proviso that if they recruited
    and retained to a higher number, we would fund to that number.
    Now, in order to go--the basic soldier cost to go from 333,000
    to 350,000 is approximately $300 million, including the basic
    complement of soldier, equipment, and--their pay, and their
    benefits, and their training. So, we would submit a--if
    required, a change to the budget in order to fund that.
        Senator Stevens. You're not now over the 333,000.
        Mr. Harvey. We're slightly over it. I believe we're between
    335,000 and 336,000 right now. So, the Guard, for the last 5
    months, unlike the preceding 13 or 14, is meeting their
    recruitment goals. So, it's all good news right now. They are
    starting to turn the corner. They had leveled off in the high
    20s. They were down to 328,000 to 329,000, and stabilized about
    333,000. And now they're growing--again growing. So, whatever
    number that they can recruit and retain, we will fund to that
    number. And if reprogramming is necessary, we'll submit the
    request to the appropriate committees to do that. For fiscal
    year 2006 they are funded at 350,000.
        Senator Stevens. General, what changes have been made in
    the Army National Guard that are structural? And can you really
    tell us, is your concept still the total force Army--Active,
    Guard, and Reserve? Is that still the concept we're working on?

                     ARMY FORCE GENERATION MODEL (ARFORGEN)

        General Schoomaker. Sir, that is still the concept. We're
    talking about a single force. Where the Guard and Reserve in
    the past have been considered a strategic reserve to be called
    up, for instance, in the cold war sense, with an awful lot of
    forewarning, what we are now doing is organizing, training, and
    equipping a total force--Active, Guard, and Reserve--on a
    common modular basis, where all of the brigades, by type, are
    the same. And our intent is to man and equip all of the
    brigades at 100 percent of requirement, placing them in a force
    rotation model that gives all of the forces predictability, in
    terms of when they are susceptible for deployment--
    fundamentally, the Active Force, on a one-and-three rotation;
    the Guard, on a one-and-six rotation--in other words, at about
    half the speed; and the Army Reserve, on a one-and-five
    rotation.
        Senator Stevens. This modularity concept, then, the Active
    and Guard are equipped and trained the same, right?
        General Schoomaker. Exactly the same, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Are they interchangeable, the brigades?
        General Schoomaker. Totally. I might also add that if you
    take a look at the 2005 to 2011 program for the Army, there is
    approximately $21 billion worth of equipment investment in
    there, which is more than four times the previous program's
    investment in the National Guard. And that does not count the
    approximately $2 billion worth of investment in new aviation
    going into the Guard and Reserve.
        Senator Stevens. Well, Mr. Secretary, last year we were
    talking about converting to 34 brigade combat teams. Now our
    staff tells us recent briefings have indicated there's 28
    units. Is that the top number now, 28?
        Mr. Harvey. The fundamental change from last year, which, I
    might note, was driven by the Army's best estimate of what the
    steady-state deployment requirements would be. And based on the
    Department of the Army's best estimate in anticipation that the
    Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) would give us a better number,
    we chose 20 brigade combat teams, which then, if you put that
    into the rotational models that the chief talked about, you
    would come up with 43 brigades in the Active, and 34 in the
    Guard. And that's how we got to those numbers.

                           QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW

        Coming out of the QDR, the QDR said the strategic window
    for steady-state deployment coming out of operational
    assessments and other judgments was--between 18 and 19 was
    sufficient strategically to meet the needs of the 21st century
    security environment.
        Using that as a steady-state, we decided that we could do
    that with 42 in the Active and 28 in the Guard. So, that's
    where those two numbers came from. That was demand-driven,
    where the previous numbers were really an estimate, a supply-
    driven estimate, in anticipation of the QDR.
        We have a number that is determined by a strategic
    assessment. We feel good about that number.
        In conjunction with the 28, however, we also looked at the
    Guard structure and decided we did not have enough support
    brigades for their State mission. So, we increased the number
    of support brigades by six. When you add it all up, they
    started out with 106. They ended up with 106. And, as I
    mentioned in my opening remarks, the mix is different. And we
    believe that mix is consistent with their dual mission, their
    State mission, as well as their national defense mission.
        Senator Stevens. Well, this is going to have to be my last
    question, but we've got the future combat system now, costs are
    up from $92 billion, as estimated, to now $160 billion. We're
    having modularity, the global posture review, future combat
    systems. These are all budgetary challenges. And are they all
    financed within the amount that's been requested here?
        Mr. Harvey. Yes, the Army modular force and the future
    combat system are in the base budget for fiscal year 2007.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Gentlemen, I hope you'll excuse me. There's--I've got to
    debate an amendment on the floor.
        Senator Inouye [presiding]. Thank you very much.

                                    TRICARE

        General Schoomaker, when I had the privilege of serving in
    the military, only 4 percent of the personnel in my regimental
    combat team had dependents--they were married and had children;
    96 percent had no dependents whatsoever. Today, I believe, in
    the United States Army, it's somewhere between 70 and 75 with
    dependents. Whenever I visit an Army base, I ask for the
    privilege and opportunity to chat with enlisted personnel. No
    officers around. It never fails, the first question asked is on
    health benefits for the dependents. And now, the DOD is talking
    about copayments for benefits, for pharmaceutical items. My
    question to you, will this have any impact on recruiting, and
    especially retention?
        General Schoomaker. Sir, I don't believe so, because the
    copayment issue does not affect the Active Force. The Active
    Force is covered totally. And I'm talking about those soldiers
    that are serving. The issue that you're describing affects
    those that have retired from Active duty----
        Senator Inouye. But not for pharmacy. The copayment affects
    Active personnel also, in the hospital.
        General Schoomaker. Sir, I'd have to check on that.
        Mr. Harvey. We'd have to check on that. But they do have--
    the option is that you don't have to pay anything if you use
    the national service.
        General Schoomaker. I don't believe there's any change in
    the current----
        Mr. Harvey. No.
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. Practice of--what we are
    trying to encourage people to do is use the mail pharmacy
    program.
        Mr. Harvey. Yes.
        General Schoomaker. I will check and provide it for the
    record.
        [The information follows:]

        The proposed changes do not increase pharmaceutical costs
    for Active duty Soldiers and do not increase costs for active
    duty families or retirees if the prescription is filled at a
    military treatment facility or through the TRICASE mail-order
    system. However, the proposal would increase prescription drug
    co-payments for dependents and retirees who use a retail
    pharmacy. I have attached a slide outlining these proposed co-
    payment changes for fiscal year 2007.

                                                    TRICARE PHARMACY
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Active Duty      Active Duty Families        Retirees
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Proposed              Proposed              Proposed
                                                                (fiscal               (fiscal               (fiscal
                                                     Current      year     Current      year     Current      year
                                                                 2007)                 2007)                 2007)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MTF:
        Generic...................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Brand Name................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Non-formulary.............................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Mail Order:
        Generic...................................  .........  .........         $3  .........         $3  .........
        Brand Name................................  .........  .........          9         $9          9         $9
        Non-formulary.............................  .........  .........         22         22         22         22
    Retail:
        Generic...................................  .........  .........          3          5          3          5
        Brand Name................................  .........  .........          9         15          9         15
        Non-formulary.............................  .........  .........         22         22         22         22
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        General Schoomaker. But the main emphasis of the
    recommendation that we've made is to capture or to help control
    the costs of those--of retired persons, up to the age of 65,
    before Medicare kicks in. So, what we are trying to do is
    arrest this excessive growth, and to normalize the copays back
    to the time in which they were started. There's never been an
    adjustment to this.

                            EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION

        Senator Inouye. Twenty-five years ago, when Chairman
    Stevens and I began our service on this subcommittee, the Army
    had so-called big five systems, the M1 tank, the Bradley, the
    Blackhawk, Apache, and the Patriot missiles. Today, you're
    still buying these systems. Do we have any new ones?
        Mr. Harvey. Yes, we do, Senator. The future combat systems
    is that ground-based modernization that will provide the next-
    generation man-ground systems, as well as a number of other
    supporting systems that will make both the current force and
    that future force more effective. In terms of--we also have, in
    parallel with that, a very large aviation modernization
    program, which consists of two new helicopters, the light
    utility helicopter, which is mainly for the National Guard, and
    the armed reconnaissance helicopter, which is a replacement for
    the OH58 Kiowa Warrior. We're also modernizing the fleet, in
    terms of the next model of the Blackhawk, conversion of the
    Apaches from the A to D model, and the upgrade of the Chinook.
    We have a very broad-based helicopter program and a very broad-
    based program to upgrade the ground based, and also developing
    the next-generation theater air defense, the PAC3 MEAD system.
    So, across the board, we're modernizing.
        General Schoomaker. Sir, if I could add to that. If we do
    not pursue the future combat system, we will not have a new
    start in over 40 years of a major system like the Bradley tank,
    the things that you mentioned. We are not building new tanks,
    and we're not building new Bradleys. We are refurbishing them
    with the reset money and the rebuild money that we have asked
    for. The power of the future combat system is in the spinouts,
    the four technology spinouts that we are taking to put over the
    top of the existing reset force. And the manned ground
    vehicles, which are the final piece of this, that bring in the
    new systems that are beyond 2014. I think it's important to
    recognize that the restructuring we did on flight control
    systems (FCS) last year--or the year before, is an important
    piece of how we're modernizing the force. And the business
    transformation of FCS the Secretary brought in is working on
    the affordability.

                          STRYKER BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS

        Senator Inouye. I note that we were very enthusiastic about
    the Stryker. But now, in the fiscal year 2007 budget, you're
    asking for less. I think you've cut it in half.
        Mr. Harvey. Well, Senator, in the mix of the 42 brigade
    combat teams and of the 28 I talked about, 7 are Stryker
    brigade combat teams. And we're very high on the Stryker
    system, and we view that as a bridge between the heavy units
    that we have today and the future combat system of the future.
    The eight manned ground vehicles that the Chief mentioned. It's
    an excellent force. There are going to six in the Active, and
    one in the Guard. But I think what you saw, the decrease, is
    because we're getting to the end of that program. We've fielded
    three to four already. We're going to complete the remaining
    three.

                      RECRUITING AND RETENTION INCENTIVES

        Senator Inouye. I have one last question, Mr. Secretary.
    The Army faces a $1 billion shortfall in bonuses and incentives
    for recruiting and retention; the Reserve, $360 million; and
    the National Guard, $250 million. My question is, Why doesn't
    your fiscal year 2007 fully fund these requirements?
        Mr. Harvey. Senator, the numbers I'm looking at, in terms
    of recruiting and retention incentives, show increases in the
    base budget between all the years. We'll submit these for the
    record.
        But I'm looking, for example, that last year recruiting and
    retention incentives are about $300 million. This year, 2006,
    we requested $341 million, and then, 2007, an increase. But
    we'll get you those numbers for the record.
        And the other thing is that we also include incentives and
    advertising in the supplemental. Unfortunately, this is just
    the way it's proposed. We'll provide, for the record, the total
    between base budget and supplemental fiscal year 2006 to 2007
    so you can see the total package.
        Senator Inouye. Well----
        Mr. Harvey. And I think you're going to see that there's an
    increase.
        Senator Inouye. I ask the question, because we want to be
    helpful to you.
        Mr. Harvey. I know you do. And we appreciate the past
    support. And you've been very, very generous. And, by the way,
    I think that is a key ingredient in the fact that for the last
    9 months we have made our recruiting goals in the Active. And
    we're kicking in some additional incentives because of what you
    passed in the 2006 budget. And I think they're having a very
    beneficial effect.
        For the record, we'll get you the entire package, because
    you've got to look at the two components together.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
        [The information follows:]

              Recruiting and Retention Budget for Fiscal Year 2007

        Fiscal year 2007 recruiting and retention budget request
    support a peacetime base force of 482,400 Army. Our current
    planning assumes continued recruiting and retention challenges.
    We continue to evaluate the Army's recruiting and retention
    requirements, and to work with OSD and the Administration to
    refine our total requirements during our nation's time at war.

                    ENLISTED RECRUITING AND RETENTION BUDGET
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal year--
                                 -------------------------------------------
                                     2004       2005       2006       2007
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AC:
        PB/Appropriated.........        322        305        305        392
        Title IX/Supplemental...  .........        257        575  .........
        Reprogramming...........         24        190  .........  .........
        Executed................        346        752        505  .........
    USAR:
        PB/Appropriated.........        129        135        189        178
        Title IX/Supplemental...  .........          9        217  .........
        Reprogramming...........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Executed................        112        130        133  .........
    ARNG:
        PB/Appropriated.........        216        244        376        383
        Title IX/Supplemental...  .........         54        195  .........
        Reprogramming...........  .........        196  .........  .........
        Executed................        215        494        353  .........
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Inouye. Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.

                                 DEPOT FUNDING

        Secretary Harvey, it's my understanding--and you correct me
    if I'm wrong--that the Army's intent is to, what you call,
    ``pure fleet'' its active duty armor brigades with M1A2 SEP
    tanks by procuring at least one brigade, or 60 tanks, at every
    budget opportunity. Would it not make sense--assuming that's
    true, would it make sense to ensure that both the 2006
    supplemental and the 2007 appropriations bill fund these 60 SEP
    tanks?
        Mr. Harvey. As you know--you may be referring to the
    supplemental that we proposed and the supplemental that was----
        Senator Shelby. Right.
        Mr. Harvey [continuing]. That made it through the system.
    Our position is that, provided that the supplemental request
    that was not included in the 2006 supplemental, it will be
    included in the 2007. So, we have a master plan to, as you say,
    ``pure fleet'' both the Active and the Guard, and we've got, of
    course, the industrial organic capability to do that at our
    depots. And so, we view, over the next 2 years, if those are
    funded per our request--so, what wasn't funded in 2006 is
    funded in 2007 bridge, we're okay. We've got detailed plans of
    loading the depots. And, provided that's timely, I think we
    feel like we have sufficient funding to do that. And it's very
    important that we do that, because that's all part of having a
    fully resourced Army.
        Senator Shelby. Got to have it, hadn't you?
        Mr. Harvey. Got to have it.

                        UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS)

        Senator Shelby. General, unmanned aerial vehicles, some of
    us are concerned that the Air Force is considering options
    which would effectively give them procurement authority and
    operational control of the extended-range multiple-purpose
    unmanned aerial vehicle program. What steps has the Army taken
    to ensure that this does not happen, if that's going down that
    road? I mean, the Army's got a big role to play here, I
    believe. And you're playing it.
        General Schoomaker. Well, I would agree. And I do not
    foresee the situation that you described.
        Senator Shelby. I hope not.
        General Schoomaker. Because we are working hand-in-glove
    with the Air Force, as you know, on a Center of Excellence----
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. At Indian Springs, which
    primarily has to do with the whole notion of how we have common
    tactics, techniques, and procedures, and how we maintain
    command and control, so that we can share the----
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. The take from these. But
    the extended range multi-purpose (ERMP) UAV program is a purely
    Army program that is tied to our force structure and is
    organic----
        Senator Shelby. And your needs, right?
        General Schoomaker. Excuse me?
        Senator Shelby. Your needs in the Army.
        General Schoomaker. Exactly. I do not see this as an issue
    at all. And it certainly has never risen as an issue between
    the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and myself. We have a very
    good----
        Mr. Harvey. Let me say, Senator, also, that----
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Mr. Harvey [continuing]. That we continue to explore ways
    that we can jointly develop----
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        Mr. Harvey [continuing]. Components so that we can minimize
    the cost. I think a good example of----
        Senator Shelby. Well, we've encouraged you to do this in a
    lot of areas.
        Mr. Harvey. Yes. A good example of our close cooperation
    with the Air Force is the joint cargo aircraft----
        Senator Shelby. Right.
        Mr. Harvey [continuing]. Which we are now developing
    together. So, we continue to explore that, but, at the same
    time, we have unique needs that we need to develop on our own.
        General Schoomaker. I'd like to add, too----
        Senator Shelby. Yes, sir.
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. Before we leave this. If
    you remember, when we restructured and canceled Comanche----
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. And we restructured Army
    aviation, we gave up the buy of a considerable amount of manned
    rotary-wing aircraft----
        Senator Shelby. Yes.
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. For the ERMP capability.
    This is inherent to our Army aviation structure, to our
    intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) structure in
    the Army, and it is not something that, in my view, can be
    farmed out. This is a level below what it is that the Air Force
    brings in on----
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. Their systems.

                           JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT (JCA)

        Senator Shelby. Secretary Harvey, if I can go back, you
    mentioned the joint cargo aircraft. And when you develop
    something jointly, there are costs involved. If the Air Force
    is going to use it as a single platform, the Army's going to
    use it, is it more than you need for the Army, or will the
    jointness take care of everything?
        Mr. Harvey. You mean the basic----
        Senator Shelby. Sometimes we'll--are the needs for the Air
    Force more than you need in the joint cargo aircraft?
        Mr. Harvey. This----
        Senator Shelby. Would it cost----
        Mr. Harvey. The least--the design is----
        Senator Shelby. Do you see what I'm getting at?
        Mr. Harvey. Yes, I do. The basic design of the aircraft, I
    think, is a convergence of the needs of both services.
        Senator Shelby. Right.
        Mr. Harvey. Then you get a common platform, and then you
    make modifications to that platform, depending on what specific
    needs you have. If you added up A plus B, which is we go our
    way, they go their way, but we go together, C is less than A
    plus B. So, I think, overall, it's a savings. And both services
    know that to be successful, both needs----
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        Mr. Harvey [continuing]. Have to be met. So, I'm very
    optimistic that we'll do it, and we'll also save the taxpayers
    money.
        Senator Shelby. That's what we want to do. But, first, the
    mission.
        Mr. Harvey. That's right.

                           JOINT COMMON MISSILE (JCM)

        Senator Shelby. The joint common missile, I bring that up
    again. You know, it was terminated in December 2004 in the
    budget decision 753, even though a lot of us thought it had a
    healthy low-risk program. It was on schedule, it was on budget,
    and successfully demonstrating important new capability for the
    warfighter.
        In 2006, Congress appropriated $30 million, General, you
    will recall, for the JCM. What's the plan for 2007? And why was
    funding not included for the JCM in the 2007's--President's
    budget? Mr. Secretary, you want to----
        Mr. Harvey. There's a joint study ongoing----
        Senator Shelby. It is.
        Mr. Harvey [continuing]. In the joint staff, an analysis of
    alternatives. And my understanding is, there's going to be a
    decision made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff Requirement
    Oversight Council (JROC) in April----
        Senator Shelby. Yes.
        Mr. Harvey [continuing]. And a recommendation made to the
    Deputy Secretary in May, and a decision. So, the decisionmaking
    process is fully engaged right now. Depending on what course of
    action they decide, then we will certainly request funding for
    that program, either by reprogramming or--internally--or
    externally, ask the committee to reprogram.
        So, I think a thoughtful program is going on. I think it's
    been established that there is a capability gap in both Navy
    and Army. And so, it's not ``if,'' it's ``how'' to best meet
    that gap. We may----
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Mr. Harvey [continuing]. Be back for some reprogramming
    action.
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, General, we thank you--I
    do--for serving. Again, we are proud of these soldiers you
    brought us here. We all are. And we should all acknowledge
    that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        One last question, sir. Your 2007 budget request calls for
    $111 billion.
        Mr. Harvey. Right.

                             UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS

        Senator Inouye. Your supplemental is $35 billion. And
    there's another item, called the ``Unfunded List,'' of $7.4
    billion. Some of my colleagues have been asking me, ``Are these
    requirements?''
        Mr. Harvey. I think the Chief is best prepared to answer
    that.
        General Schoomaker. I'm not sure which unfunded list you're
    asking for. We traditionally have been asked, from the House,
    for an unfunded requirements list. In general, with more
    dollars, what we would do is accelerate our plan. That's what
    we want to do, is accelerate the plan that we're on. It's a
    very tightly knit plan, the Army campaign plan that pulls all
    this together. My view is, the faster we can execute it, the
    cheaper it will be and the smarter we will be by getting it
    accomplished in anticipation of budgetary pressures in the out-
    years. That would be my answer to you.
        Senator Inouye. In other words, in order to make your
    fiscal year 2007 budget request really work, the unfunded list
    is necessary.
        Mr. Harvey. Let me just state as follows. The end state,
    Senator, in terms of force structure, in terms of our
    modernization programs that we've talked about, the end state
    being the 70 brigade combat teams, the 211 support--that will
    not change. We believe that that force structure and our
    modernization programs and the other funding that you provide
    in--for recruiting and retention, it's just a matter if we want
    to accelerate that and reduce institutional risks or--not
    operational risks. This would be running the factories, running
    the depots. You know, if you got the big momentum going, we
    want to keep it going. So, it just--it would accelerate us
    getting to the end state that we--the Chief and I--which is a
    fully resourced--that is, a fully equipped, trained, and manned
    Army across all components--to the numbers we talked about.
    That's what we would do.
        General Schoomaker. Sir, if I could just add. I just want
    to make sure I'm very clear in the answer that I gave to you.
    In the past, you might have seen an unfinanced requirement list
    that would have said, ``Look, we had to make decisions, and we
    had to leave things out.''
        Mr. Harvey. Yes.
        General Schoomaker. In this case, we are funding our plan
    totally at the speed at which we get funding. If we were to
    achieve more funding, we would go faster on exactly the same
    program.
        Mr. Harvey. Right.
        General Schoomaker. And that was what I was trying to say
    there. And I think----
        Mr. Harvey. Right. We're not----
        General Schoomaker [continuing]. It supports what----
        Mr. Harvey [continuing]. Leaving anything out.
        General Schoomaker. Right.
        Mr. Harvey. It's a matter of timing. The quicker, the
    better, I think, because of the risk involved. And so, I think
    we would reduce risk if we get there faster. But, this is very
    acceptable.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, General Schoomaker, on
    behalf of the chairman, I thank you for your service and for
    your testimony today. And I'd like to thank the three heroes
    here with us, and their comrades who are now serving us. 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 General Peter J. Schoomaker
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                              hyperbaric treatment
        Question. General Schoomaker, I have been informed that hyperbaric
    treatment helps reduce tissue loss from wounds and could mean the
    difference between amputation above or below the knee, elbow or other
    major joint. Funds were appropriated in the fiscal year 2006 budget for
    the Army to purchase and emplace a hyperbaric chamber for the Walter
    Reed Army Medical Center to help treat wounded veterans returning from
    Iraq and Afghanistan. Would you agree we should provide these veterans
    with quality care and the best chance for recovery? Could you provide
    this Subcommittee with an update on the status of this project?
        Answer. The Army is committed to providing the best possible
    healthcare to wounded Soldiers. The medical benefit of hyperbaric
    treatment for most of the Soldiers treated at Walter Reed Army Medical
    Center is very limited. Most of these patients had amputations
    performed prior to reaching Walter Reed, so hyperbaric capability at
    Walter Reed would not have prevented these amputations. In fiscal year
    2005, 10 patients from Walter Reed, including six retirees, three
    Soldiers, and one family member, were provided hyperbaric therapy at
    local civilian hospitals at a total cost of $73,049. Additionally,
    funds were appropriated for the Navy to purchase and emplace a
    hyperbaric chamber for the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda.
    For the very small number of patients at WRAMC who would benefit from
    this therapy, it is much more cost effective to buy hyperbaric therapy
    from civilian hospitals. The Army does not have a clinical need for a
    chamber at Walter Reed and does not have the necessary staff to use a
    chamber as intended. Given the Base Realignment and Closure decision to
    close the existing Walter Reed campus, it is not in the Army's best
    interest to put a chamber at Walter Reed that will not generate a
    return on investment in terms of purchased care savings or research
    capabilities. The Army has asked the Subcommittee to reconsider this
    project and to allow us to use the appropriated funds to upgrade the
    Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine which will benefit many of the
    combat casualties, Soldiers, families, and retirees cared for at Walter
    Reed.

                             INTRA-THEATER AIRLIFT

        Question. General Schoomaker, I know the Army has budgeted to
    procure a new intra-theater light cargo aircraft to replace the C-23
    Sherpa aircraft and the CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters. Under
    Secretary Kenneth Krieg directed the Army and the Air Force to complete
    an acquisition strategy for a new Joint Cargo Aircraft program, and I
    have been informed that earlier this month a joint program office
    charter, with the Army as lead agency, was announced. General, will the
    Army's intra-theater cargo lift requirements be fully met by the joint
    cargo aircraft procurement?
        Answer. The Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program will meet the Army's
    organic intra-theater fixed wing cargo aircraft lift requirements by
    providing the capability to transport time-sensitive, mission-critical
    resupply, and key personnel transport at the tactical level. The Army's
    approved Aviation modernization plan and fixed wing Organization &
    Operations (O&O) plan calls for the replacement of the existing Army
    utility and cargo fixed wing aircraft with two aircraft variants; the
    Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA) and the Future Utility Aircraft (FUA). The
    Army initiated the fixed wing modernization with the FCA program. The
    FCA is scheduled to replace the Army's aging and less capable C-23
    (Sherpa) fleet, its C-26 (Metroliner) fleet, and a portion of the C-12
    (King Air) fleet. The FCA is not a replacement for the CH-47 (Chinook);
    the FCA system provides a complementary capability to the CH-47
    helicopter. The Army plans to begin development of the FUA Critical
    Capabilities Document (CDD) in fiscal year 2009.
        On December 20, 2005, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
    issued a Program Decision Memorandum (PDM) that directed the Services
    to develop and brief a FCA/Light Cargo Aircraft (LCA) Joint Program
    Office Plan to the Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE), Mr. Krieg, no
    later than February 28, 2006. The Services initiated the process of
    folding the Air Force's LCA emerging capabilities into the Army's FCA
    program in January 2006. Between January 12 and March 17, 2006, the
    Services developed a Joint FCA Acquisition Strategy Report (ASR), a
    draft Joint Program Office Charter, and a draft Memorandum of
    Agreement, which together detail the way ahead for convergence of the
    two programs into a single JCA program. These agreements state that the
    Army will be the initial lead for the JCA program and that the JCA
    Program Office will be located in Huntsville, Alabama. On March 17,
    2006, Mr. Krieg approved the Joint FCA ASR and the JCA request for
    proposal was subsequently released.
        Question. General Schoomaker, can you update the committee on the
    timeline making the selection for the new Joint Future Cargo Aircraft?
        Answer. The JCA request for proposal was released on March 17, 2006
    and are due no later than May 17, 2006. The Services' JCA source
    selection process will begin in May 2006 and proceed through December
    2006. The Services anticipate Milestone C and contract award in January
    2007.
        Question. General Schoomaker, has the merging of the Air Force's
    requirements with the Army's on this program affected the Army's target
    date for deployment of the aircraft?
        Answer. The Army's FCA ASR was forwarded for the DAE's approval on
    November 15, 2005. At that time, the Army anticipated releasing the FCA
    request for proposal on December 15, 2005. On December 20, 2005, the
    Office of the Secretary of Defense issued a PDM that provided initial
    funding to the Air Force to initiate development of a LCA program. The
    same PDM directed the Services to develop and brief a FCA/LCA Joint
    Program Office plan to the DAE, Mr. Krieg, no later than February 28,
    2006. On December 22, 2005, Mr. Krieg withheld his approval of the
    Army's FCA ASR pending completion of a Joint (Army/Air Force) FCA ASR.
    The joint Future Cargo Aircraft ASR was subsequently approved by the
    DAE on March 17, 2006 resulting in a three month slip in the Army
    portion of the JCA program. The Army still anticipates the first unit
    being equipped in fiscal year 2009.
        Question. General Schoomaker, will the Army explore having U.S.
    allies join the program in the developmental phase--as a number have
    done with the Joint Strike Fighter program--or do you know if coalition
    nations have expressed an interest to purchase this new cargo aircraft?
        Answer. The JCA is a commercially available aircraft, currently
    offered on the open market, and to date no U.S. coalition partners have
    requested to participate in the JCA program. While it is possible for
    coalition nations or NATO partners to procure JCA directly from the
    original equipment manufacturer, once the vendor is selected some
    coalition partners may seek to participate in the U.S. sponsored
    program.

                               ARMY MODULAR FORCE

        Question. General Schoomaker, I continue to watch the Army's
    transformation efforts with interest. As I understand it, instead of
    divisions being the centerpiece of the Army, brigade combat teams will
    be a strategically agile force that can ``plug into'' joint and
    coalition forces in an expeditionary manner. Could you describe what
    the Army will look like at the end of fiscal year 2007 and the rate at
    which the remainder of the Army to include the National Guard will
    become a modular force?
        Answer. Modular transformation is the most dramatic restructuring
    of forces since World War II. The centerpiece is the building of
    brigade combat teams (BCT) and associated multi-functional and
    functional support brigades. The Army also is rebalancing our forces to
    create the right mix of units, develop critical Soldier skills, and
    build effective operational and institutional forces across all three
    components. The Army is building toward 70 BCTs and 211 multi-
    functional and functional support brigades. By the end of fiscal year
    2007, the active component will have converted 29 modular BCTs and
    activated nine new modular BCTs. Additionally, the active component
    will have built 32 multi-functional and functional support brigades.
    Active component modular transformation will be completed by fiscal
    year 2010. The Army National Guard is building toward 28 BCTs in a
    total of 106 brigades by the end of fiscal year 2011. By the end of
    fiscal year 2007, the Army National Guard will have converted 25 BCTs
    and built 50 multi-functional and functional support brigades. However,
    the BCT conversion primarily addresses changes in unit designs and
    manning to facilitate recruiting and individual training. The equipping
    upgrades to complete the conversions of these brigades will extend
    through fiscal year 2011. The Army Reserve will have 65 support
    brigades by fiscal year 2007. However, with completion of modular
    transformation in fiscal year 2011, the Army Reserve will re-size to a
    total of 58 multi-functional and functional support brigades. The Army
    is currently conducting a collaborative effort with the Army National
    Guard Adjutants General to address warfighting requirements, current
    operational demands and potential Homeland Defense missions. The
    results of this effort may change the number and type of BCTs and
    support brigades in the Army National Guard beginning in fiscal year
    2008.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

                       TRAINING OF IRAQI SECURITY FORCES

        Question. The Administration and the Pentagon continue to repeat
    the mantra, ``When the Iraqis standup, we will stand down.'' However,
    here in the Congress, we continue to receive mixed reports on the
    progress of training a capable Iraqi Army. While it is my understanding
    that the number of Iraqi battalions able to function ``in the lead''
    (or at Level 2) has increased to over 50 today, I have also heard that
    the number of Iraqi battalions at Level 1, or able to operate fully
    independently, has recently dropped from one to zero.
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.
        Question. Will you please explain why we have had such difficulty
    transitioning Iraqi forces from Level 2 to Level 1? How is it that not
    one Iraqi battalion is able to function independently of coalition
    forces?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.
        Question. Are you confident the U.S. military in Iraq has enough
    qualified trainers to adequately train the Iraqi forces? Should U.S.
    commanders on the ground shift additional forces from security duties
    to training?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.
        Question. What percentage of the Iraqi Army controlled by the
    Ministry of Defense is Sunni? To what extent are former officers and
    soldiers--disbanded through our ``Debaathification'' policy--returning
    to serve in the Army? What incentives are being provided to lure Sunni
    recruits?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.
        Question. What is the ethnic makeup of the Iraqi battalions in an
    advanced state of readiness? What percentage of these battalions are
    made up of Kurdish and Shiite recruits?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.
        Question. What steps are being taken to integrate units to create
    an ethnically and religiously diverse Iraqi force? From a security
    standpoint, is diversity even desirable?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.
        Question. Will the emerging Iraqi forces have enough independent
    technical capabilities (communication networks, air power, heavy armor,
    weaponry, and intelligence logistics) to operate on their own without
    U.S. assistance in the near future?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.
        Question. What is the timeframe for creating an Iraqi Army which is
    superior in force and skill to the Sunni insurgency or any of the
    Shiite or Kurdish militias?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.
        Question. This year was labeled the ``Year of the Police'' by the
    Pentagon--a phrase clearly intending to indicate a renewed effort to
    train Iraqi security forces under the control of the Iraqi Interior
    Ministry. Please describe current U.S. oversight activities vis-a-vis
    the Iraqi police forces, particularly the paramilitary units under
    control of the Interior Ministry? How can the United States and Iraq
    further prevent Shiite militias from dominating local police forces?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.
        Question. How would you assess the progress over the past 3 months
    in the training of Iraqi police units?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.
        Question. To what degree do you remain concerned about the
    infiltration of police forces by: the insurgency? local militias? Iran?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.
        Question. What are the greatest barriers that coalition troops
    currently face in their efforts to train an effective police force in
    Iraq?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.

               ARMY TRANSFORMATION AND THE C-17 AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

        Question. Reports suggest that the Mobility Capabilities Study
    (MCS)--which was supposed to provide the Pentagon an accurate
    projection of future strategic airlift requirements--neither takes into
    account (1) the Army's transition to a modular brigade force structure
    nor (2) the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. Consequently it is my
    understanding that DOD has commissioned a new study (MCS-06) to address
    these and other areas that the previous MCS study failed to account for
    in considering the military's future air mobility needs. With this
    being the case, has the Army ever articulated or estimated the airlift
    requirements that will be connected to the mobilization of the 15
    Future Combat Systems (FCS) brigade combat teams (BCTs)?
        Answer. The Army is in the process of establishing the airlift
    options available to Joint Forces Commanders to support the deployment
    of Future Combat Systems (FCS) Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs). The 2005
    Mobility Capability Study (MCS 05) focused on the strategic lift
    requirements for the 2012 timeframe. The study did not consider
    deployment of FCS equipped forces. MCS 05 examined the strategic
    mobility capabilities provided by the current pre-positioning, sealift
    and airlift programs of record and found them to provide sufficient
    lift. The strategic airlift modeled in the MCS 05 study consisted of
    current programmed fleet of 180 C-17s, 112 C-5s and the Civil Reserve
    Air Fleet (CRAF), and found it to sufficient to meet lift requirements.
    We realize that now and in the future, deployment and sustainment of
    heavy Army forces in support of the combatant commanders (COCOMs) will
    employ a mix of airlift, sealift, and pre-positioned stocks.
    Maintaining this balance provides multiple options for deployment and
    employment of force. The Army requested a Joint analysis of
    requirements for global airlift, sealift, and pre-positioned stocks
    extending through 2024 and will support the MCS-06 study.
        Question. If not, when does the Army anticipate it will be able to
    provide the Air Force a realistic projection of its airlift
    requirements based on its transition from a division-centric to
    brigade-centric force?
        Answer. Developing strategic lift requirements is a Joint process
    which has to consider the type, amount, and location of forces to be
    moved. MCS 06 will capture the modular mobility requirements for
    sealift, airlift and associated pre-positioning. COCOMs dictate the
    timing and location for the delivery of Army forces within the context
    of a Joint Force flow. Personnel and equipment required during the
    first 30 days of a conflict will be given the highest priority for
    movement by airlift. The heavy units that are needed in less than 30
    days may be pre-positioned rather than have them compete for strategic
    airlift. Finally, the equipment and sustainment items not required in
    the first 30-45 days will likely be delivered by sealift. The Army
    provides input to the development of these requirements by providing
    Joint Staff and COCOM planners with Army Future Force concepts of
    employment and capabilities. COCOM and Joint planners will then develop
    the Joint Force flow requirements that will be used to development
    total Joint lift (sea and air) requirements. Pre-positioned stocks will
    also be used to fill shortfalls in either sealift or airlift due to
    wither speed of delivery of sealift or physical capacity (amount of
    lift) of the aircraft.
        Question. Under the Global Posture Review, 38 of the Army's 42
    active-duty brigade combat teams (BCTs) will eventually be stationed in
    the Continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. At any one time, the
    Army hopes to have up to 19 of these BCTs (14 active and 4-5 reserve)
    PLUS associated operational headquarters and support brigades--ready
    for operations world-wide. Given this force reconfiguration--based on
    operational requirements--are you confident there will be sufficient
    military airlift to transport up to 15 of these brigade combat teams
    (BCTs), along with the associated headquarters and support units, from
    bases in the United States to a crisis area?
        Answer. Airlift is only one portion of strategic lift capability to
    deploy Army forces. The bulk of Army combat power will be projected by
    sea. Airlift, coupled with sealift and globally pre-positioned stocks,
    provides for both rapid employment and long-term sustainment of Army
    forces. The 2005 Mobility Capability Study (MCS 05) which modeled
    strategic airlift requirements based on the current programmed fleet of
    180 C-17s, 112 C-5s and the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) indicates
    that DOD has sufficient strategic airlift available through the 2012
    timeframe. Both the Army transformation to modular brigades and
    restationing in response to the Global Posture Review will be completed
    within the timeframe considered.

                               CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ

        Question. We have seen a significant increase in the number of
    Iraqis killed in sectarian violence over the past 3 months. Reports
    suggest that over 1,000 have died since the February 22nd bombing of
    the Golden Mosque in Samarra and over the weekend we discovered more
    evidence of revenge killings in a mass grave that included 30 beheaded
    bodies. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has stated his belief
    that Iraq is already experiencing a civil war. However, Pentagon
    officials and the Administration have taken great pains to dispute the
    idea that we have entered into a period of civil war in Iraq.
        For the record, do you believe Iraq is now enmeshed in a ``civil
    war?''
        If not, how would you define a ``civil war?''
        Finally, assuming that Iraq is now (or does) face a full-blown
    civil war, how does this affect U.S. military strategy and the status
    of U.S. troops deployed in the region?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.

                                TROOP REDUCTIONS

        Question. Does the Army plan to reduce its endstrength in Iraq this
    year? Next year?
        Answer. In accordance with title 10, U.S. Code, the Army is charged
    with organizing, manning, training and equipping a force capable of
    fulfilling current and future Secretary of Defense-approved
    requirements of combatant commanders. Thus, the Army force scheduled to
    deploy in future rotations to Iraq is conditional upon periodic
    strategic and operational assessments from the Commander, U.S. Central
    Command (CENTCOM). The number and type of forces requested by the
    CENTCOM commander may fluctuate as the political, economic and security
    conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan evolve over time.

               TROOP REDUCTIONS/TRAINING OF IRAQI SECURITY FORCES

        Question. Do you agree with General Casey that a drawdown in U.S.
    troops might ease some of the enthusiasm for the ongoing insurgency in
    Iraq?
        Answer. The President's National Strategy for Victory in Iraq is
    very clear in that we will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with
    a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights
    and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep
    Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To this end, the Army
    is committed to providing General Casey with the required Army
    capabilities for success on the ground in Iraq.

                                TROOP REDUCTIONS

        Question. Secretary of State Rice and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
    of Staff General Pace have both suggested in recent days that it is
    likely that the military will drawdown troop levels sometime this year.
    Last fall General Casey, the top commander in Iraq, stated that a
    reduction in American troops would take ``away an element that fuels
    the insurgency.''
        How do you think that a reduction in the number of American forces
    would affect the rise in sectarian violence in Iraq?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.

                            IRAQ'S INFLUENCE IN IRAQ

        Question. Earlier this month, Secretary Rumsfeld said in a press
    conference that Iran is ``currently putting people into Iraq to do
    things that are harmful to the future of Iraq. They're putting Iranian
    Qods Force-type people into the country.''
        Can you provide more information on this statement--how many
    Iranian nationals have you found in Iraq, what are they doing, and are
    they collaborating with the Iraqi SCIRI party?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted to Francis J. Harvey
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                                   MODULARITY

        Question. What is the estimated total cost of the Army's modularity
    initiative? How much funding has been provided to date to implement the
    modularity initiative? What is the estimated amount of future funding
    needed to complete the modularity initiative?
        Answer. The Army estimates the total cost of the modularity
    initiative at $52.5 billion through fiscal year 2011. To date, the Army
    has received $6.5 billion: $5 billion in the fiscal year 2005
    supplemental and $1.5 billion programmed in the base budget in fiscal
    year 2006. The estimated amount needed to complete the Army modularity
    initiative is $46 billion.

                           FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM (FCS)

        Question. What is the estimated total cost of the FCS program? How
    much funding has been provided to date for the FCS program? What is the
    estimated amount of future funding needed to complete the FCS program?
        Answer. As reported in the Program Manager, Future Combat Systems
    (Brigade Combat Team) (PM FCS (BCT)) Selected Acquisition Report, dated
    December 31, 2005, the estimated total cost is $119.9 billion (fiscal
    year 2003 Base Year dollars) or $164.6 billion (then year dollars).
    From fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2006, the FCS program has
    been appropriated in the amount of $8 billion (then year dollars) while
    only receiving actual funds of $7.6 billion. With the current funding
    schedule, the estimated funding requirement is approximately $157
    billion (then year dollars).

                              RESETTING THE FORCE

        Question. To date, how many units has the Army reset? How much
    funding has been provided to date to reset Army units? Based on current
    information, how much future funding is needed to reset Army units?
        Answer. The Army has reset or will have reset a total of 95
    brigade-sized or brigade combat team elements from fiscal years 2004-
    2006. The break-out of brigade-size elements by year is shown below:

                                TOTAL ARMY BCT'S
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  No. BCT's
                           Component/Unit                          or units
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Active:
        3ID....................................................            5
        4ID....................................................            5
        2/82...................................................            1
        3/1 ID.................................................            1
        3ACR...................................................            2
        101st..................................................            6
        2ACR...................................................            1
        1/10...................................................            1
        2/10...................................................            1
        Various................................................            3
    NG:
        45th Inf...............................................            1
        Various (no BDE sized elements all various (CS/CSS)....            4
    USAR: Various (no BDE sized elements all various CS/CSS)...            5
                                                                ------------
          Total Army BCT's Supported in Fiscal Year 2004.......           36
                                                                ============
    Active:
        101 ID.................................................            6
        4 ID...................................................            6
        172 ID.................................................            1
        1 AD...................................................            1
        10 MNT.................................................            3
        Various (no BDE sized elements all various CS/CSS).....            3
    NG: Various................................................            4
    USAR: Various..............................................            2
                                                                ------------
          Total Army BCT's Supported in Fiscal Year 2005.......           26
                                                                ============
    Active:
        3ID....................................................            5
        1/82d..................................................            2
        1/25th.................................................            1
        2/2ID..................................................            1
        3/1 AD.................................................            1
        3 ACR..................................................            2
        2/10th 2 (1 BCT, plus DISCOM slice)....................            2
        1st COSCOM.............................................            1
        Various (no BDE sized elements all various CS/CSS).....            3
    NG: Various................................................           12
    USAR: Various..............................................            3
                                                                ------------
          Total Army BCT's Being Reset in Fiscal Year 2006.....           33
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION

        Question. Please describe how the Army is accelerating Business
    Transformation efforts in the fiscal year 2007 budget request. What is
    the estimated total cost to implement Army Business Transformation
    efforts? What is the estimated total savings the Army expects to
    achieve as a result of Business Transformation efforts?
        Answer. To explain how the Army is accelerating Business
    Transformation efforts in the fiscal year 2007 budget request, the
    scope of Army Business Transformation needs to be understood, then how
    specific budget requests accelerate this transformation and associated
    total cost and savings can be explored.
        Our business transformation initiatives include Continuous Process
    Improvement (CPI) using the Lean Six Sigma (LSS) methodology, Business
    Situational Awareness, Organizational Analysis and Design (OAD), and
    Professional Development.
        We have started the largest deployment of Lean Six Sigma ever
    attempted. This effort is underway with training, education, and
    project selection. Projects will be both centrally sponsored for
    crosscutting initiatives as well as command specific; a combined top-
    down and bottom-up approach to accelerate the transformational effect.
    The result will be reduced cost and cycle time while increasing
    quality, production, reliability, and safety.
        Business situational awareness is the product of timely and
    accurate information to support policy and resource allocation systems.
    These enterprise information solutions will provide Army leaders
    clarity on systems and processes where today it is difficult to
    observe.
        Organizational Analysis and Design examines functions and structure
    of organizations, then redesigns and realigns organizational elements
    as necessary to accomplish the mission/work assigned. This analysis,
    design, and alignment will reduce redundancies and ensure organizations
    can effectively and efficiently fulfill the needs of our warfighters.
        Professional Development of Army Leaders is critical to successful
    business transformation and the Army is examining ways to broaden the
    education, training, and experience of our officers and civilians to
    meet the complex challenges of leading the Army business enterprise.
    This initiative area will help educate and develop leaders of Army
    enterprises so that they are fully prepared for the challenges of
    leading the Army's complex business organizations.
        To ensure these efforts are successful and to highlight their
    importance, we created the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of the
    Army for Business Transformation, headed by Mr. Michael Kirby.
        The scope of the efforts just reviewed is immense, literally
    touching or impacting every facet of the Army. The fiscal year 2007
    budget request accelerates these efforts by: funding the initial wave
    of projects and certification for lean six sigma (LSS) deployment ($7.8
    million in fiscal year 2007); with opportunities to all subordinate
    organizations to reallocate their training budgets to invest in this
    primary effort.
        The answer to the question of total cost is elusive for several
    reasons. Since business transformation includes efforts that will
    become embedded in the fabric of the Army, these efforts will not end;
    instead, they will become a self-sustaining Army capability, changing
    the way we do business. For example, the LSS deployment is using
    industry experts, where the Army lacks them, to train, create, and
    certify Army experts who will soon be able to do the training, and
    certification of future Army experts. Thus a better understanding of
    the relevant cost for the Continuous Process Improvement and
    Organizational Analysis and Design efforts is likely startup costs--the
    lean six sigma certification and initial project costs identified
    above.
        The cost of providing business situational awareness in most cases
    will be embedded within the technology that we are obtaining to help
    manage the Army enterprise. The transformational aspect is how we use
    the data that enterprise resource planning (ERP) programs provide not
    necessarily the program itself. While it might be technically correct
    to include the cost of all ERPs in the total cost of business
    transformation, I think it is more appropriate to attribute these costs
    to the functions each ERP is being designed to produce and that is the
    way they are shown in the fiscal year 2007 budget request.
        No cost estimate currently exists for professional development
    since it is still under intense study and no specific course of action
    has been determined.
        The answer to the question of total savings is as elusive as total
    costs not only in an accounting perspective but also due to replication
    and economies of scale. The benefits generated from business
    transformation in many cases are not directly pecuniary--LSS and OAD
    will increase responsiveness and quality; SA will increase the quality
    of decision making; and professional development will help create more
    capable leaders. Likewise some of the savings are impossible to
    estimate at this point--LSS and OAD projects are still being scoped; SA
    will identify redundancies that are currently unknown; and professional
    development impacts cannot be estimated until the path forward is
    decided.
        The answer to this set of questions may lack the specificity
    desired. This highlights one of compelling reasons that we need to
    transform the way we do business. As we move forward to the Army will
    share the results of these initiatives with you.

                    RESTRUCTURING THE FORCE--AC/RC REBALANCE

        Question. When does the Army expect to complete the AC/RC
    rebalancing effort? What costs are associated with implementing the AC/
    RC rebalancing initiative? How is the AC/RC rebalancing effort
    synchronized with the Army modular force effort?
        Answer. Active component/Reserve Component (AC/RC) rebalance is
    always an on-going part of force re-structuring as the Army addresses
    the right mix of capabilities to meet strategic and operational
    requirements. Beginning with the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) for
    2004-2009, the Army formally identified restructuring initiatives
    affecting the mix of capabilities across all three components.
    Subsequent initiatives were generated by the Secretary of Defense
    guidance in July 2003, concerning the reduction of involuntary
    mobilization of the RC in the first 15 days of a rapid response
    operation, and limiting involuntary mobilization to not more than one
    year every six years. Additionally, the Chief of Staff, Army, focus
    area in early 2004, addressed manning issues, high demand/low density
    capabilities and the establishment of training overhead accounts
    (Transient, Trainees, Holdees and Students--TTHS) for the RC. Under
    these three phases of force re-structuring, the Army program identified
    over 125,000 spaces of change between fiscal years 2004-2009. At the
    end of 2005, the Army had completed re-structuring efforts affecting
    over 30,000 spaces--approximately 21,000 in the rebalance of
    capabilities across the three components and over 9,000 affecting the
    elimination of over structure and the establishment of TTHS accounts in
    the RC. Costs for phase one and phase two initiatives were reflected as
    offsets across existing programs to capture the changes in equipment,
    facilities, and operational tempo as force capabilities were rebalanced
    across the components. The costs for phase three have been reflected in
    the re-investment of existing programs and improved readiness as RC
    overstructure is eliminated. With implementation of modular
    transformation beginning in fiscal year 2004, additional re-structuring
    initiatives will occur through fiscal year 2011. Based on the results
    of Total Army Analysis (TAA) 2008-2013, and the efforts underway with
    POM 2008-2013, the Army will update its AC/RC rebalancing program in a
    report to the Office of the Secretary of Defense in June 2006. The
    update will synchronize AC/RC rebalance initiatives with the Army
    Campaign Plan and will ensure all re-structure and rebalance efforts
    are linked to modular transformation.

                      BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)

        Question. What is the Army total cost estimate for implementing the
    BRAC recommendations?
        Answer. The current Army BRAC estimates are in the range of $15 to
    $18 billion. The fiscal year 2007 President's budget request funded
    $9.5 billion for Army BRAC through the BRAC implementation period
    (fiscal year 2006-2011). For fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the
    requirements of $4.4 billion fully fund the program. The Army continues
    to refine the remaining BRAC implementation requirements to be
    resourced and these will be documented in the 2008/2009 BRAC
    President's budget request.

             INTEGRATED GLOBAL PRESENCE AND BASING STRATEGY (IGPBS)

        Question. What is the Army's estimated total cost to implement
    IGPBS decisions? How much funding has been provided to date to
    implement IGPBS decisions? What is the estimated amount of future
    funding needed to implement IGPBS decisions?
        Answer. The Army estimates the total cost of IGPBS at $2.9 billion
    through fiscal year 2013. This includes Base Realignment and Closure
    IGPBS stationing actions included in the 2005 BRAC Commission Report.
    In fiscal year 2006 the Army has funded $460.8 million; $337.6 million
    for BRAC and $123.2 million base budget (MCA--$12 million; MPA--$33
    million; OMA--$66.7 million and OPA--$11.5 million). The remaining
    estimated amount needed to complete IGPBS is $2.4 billion.

                WARFIGHTER INFORMATION NETWORK--TACTICAL (WIN-T)

        Question. What is the Army plan for transitioning from Joint
    Network Node to WIN-T? Please explain how the WIN-T program has been
    rebaselined to support the FCS program? What is the estimated total
    cost of the WIN-T program? How much funding has been provided to date
    for the WIN-T program? What is the estimated amount of future funding
    needed to complete the WIN-T program?
        Answer. Currently, the Army is assessing how to optimize transition
    from the procurement and fielding of the Joint Network Node to
    Warfighter Information Network--Tactical (WIN-T). The WIN-T program's
    re-baselining supports Future Combat Systems (FCS) by aligning the
    availability of configuration items to support FCS integration and lab
    testing. Afterward, WIN-T will provide form fit and function products
    that meet prescribed space, weight, and power dimensions and liquid-
    cooling technology for integration into FCS platforms. The total
    acquisition cost for the WIN-T program per the December 2005 Selected
    Acquisition Report (SAR) is estimated in fiscal year 2003 constant
    (base year) dollars at $10.6 million for Research, Development, Testing
    and Evaluation (RDTE) and procurement costs. The total acquisition cost
    in then year dollars is $14.2 million. The total amount of funding
    provided to date in fiscal year 2003 constant (base year) dollars
    (2002-2006) for WIN-T is $322.6 million. Adjusted for inflation, this
    amount is $335.7 million (then year dollars). The estimated amount of
    future funding needed to complete the WIN-T program estimated in fiscal
    year 2003 constant (base year) dollars is $10.2 million. Adjusted for
    inflation, this amount is $13.8 million (then year dollars) for RDT&E
    and procurement.

                       JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM (JTRS)

        Question. Prior to the JTRS program restructure, what was the Army
    total cost estimate to develop and field JTRS Cluster 1 and JTRS
    Cluster 5 radios? What is the Army's current total cost estimate to
    develop and field JTRS radios? How has the Army JTRS fielding plan
    changed as a result of the program restructuring?
        Answer. The JTRS Program had programmed approximately $3 billion in
    the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) prior to the restructuring. After
    the restructuring, the current estimate to develop the total JTRS
    Increment 1 program, which includes the air, ground, and maritime
    domains is now approximately $4 billion in the FYDP. The Army portion
    of this DOD enterprise-wide estimate is approximately one-third of the
    $4 billion. This estimate was approved by the Department in November
    2005 at the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB). The Increment 1
    development is designed to deliver critical networking capabilities to
    the warfighter. Future incremental developments will add additional
    capabilities as technology matures and funding becomes available.
        Since the program has been restructured, the Army's fielding plan
    has changed to accommodate the revised funding and program timelines
    approved by the DAB. In general, the JTRS program restructuring delayed
    the fielding of JTRS capabilities about two years. The FCS program, as
    well as other Army fielding plans, has been synchronized to achieve
    JTRS capabilities as soon as the JTRS begins to field its systems
    (fiscal year 2009/10).

               ARMY TRANSFORMATION AND THE C-17 AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

        Question. What is the estimated total cost to implement the
    recommendations of the Army Aviation Task Force? How much funding has
    been provided to date to implement Army Aviation Task Force
    recommendations? What is the estimated amount of future funding needed
    to complete implementations of Army Aviation Task Force
    recommendations? Please describe how Army Aviation Modernization
    efforts have changed since completion of the Army Aviation Task Force
    review?
        Answer. In 2003, the Chief of the Staff, Army (CSA) directed Army
    aviation to become a ``capabilities based maneuver arm optimized for
    the joint fight with a shortened logistics tail.'' The desired outcome
    is aviation units in modular configuration that are agile, flexible,
    deployable, and sustainable.
        The Acting Secretary of the Army and CSA recommendation to
    terminate the Comanche program was supported by the Secretary of
    Defense and approved by the President on February 20, 2004. It was
    subsequently briefed to Congress the week of February 23-27, 2004.
        In order to implement the aviation focus group recommendations and
    CSA-approved decisions, all funding resulting from the termination of
    the Comanche program and all funding within aviation programs will
    remain with the Aviation Battlefield Operating System for the
    resourcing of aviation programs.
        Army aviation funding, from both the aviation base budget and
    Comanche reprogramming, totals $12.2 billion (fiscal year 2005-2007)
    and is applied in accordance with the aviation investment strategy.
    Retention of funding within Army aviation, combined with the commitment
    from senior Army leadership, the Secretary of Defense, Congress, and
    the President, creates the opportunity to ``fix'' Army aviation. The
    challenge is in maintaining the long term fiscal discipline necessary
    to fully implement the strategy.
        The aviation investment strategy supports the Army Aviation
    Modernization Plan, included in the Army Modernization Plan, which
    describes the changes intended to improve Army capabilities to meet
    current and future full-spectrum aviation requirements. The Aviation
    Modernization Plan was developed based on a full Doctrine,
    Organization, Training, Leadership and Education, Materiel, Personnel,
    and Facilities analysis that included the integration of lessons
    learned from recent operations.
        Army aviation is moving aggressively to (1) Satisfy current and
    future operational capabilities; (2) Modernize the entire fleet while
    supporting current deployments; (3) Rapidly acquire best materiel
    solutions by facilitating correct and comprehensive policies; and (4)
    Achieve Joint interoperability, modularity and deployability through
    transformation.

                         RECEIPT OF SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS

        Question. Secretary Harvey, it would be helpful if you could
    explain how soon you will need the Supplemental funds requested for the
    Global War on Terror which were requested in mid-February. Also, could
    you share with the committee what impact there would be from any delay
    in receipt of the requested funds?
        Answer. We will need the Supplemental enacted in May in order to
    receive the funding by early June. After this date we risk exhausting
    all funds from both Title IX and base programs and could face
    insolvency in some appropriations.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                        ARMY NATIONAL GUARD END STRENGTH

        Question. Secretary Harvey, the fiscal year 2007 budget funds the
    Army National Guard at 333,000 and not the congressionally mandated
    350,000. I understand this is part of the Army's plan to transform and
    to modernize.
        A positive aspect of your plan is that National Guards units would,
    for the first time, be resourced equivalent to active forces. I also
    understand there is a commitment from the Department to fund the Army
    National Guard to the strength they are able to recruit, up to 350,000.
        Based on current indicators, the National Guard will exceed
    retention goals. In Mississippi for example, the Guard achieved 101
    percent of their retention mission during a very difficult time that
    they were supporting the Global War on Terror and trying to deal with
    the terrible effects of Hurricane Katrina.
        My question to you is how will the Department fund the increase in
    personnel when Guard recruiting and retention goals are achieved?
        Answer. The Army is committed to funding the Army National Guard to
    350,000 in fiscal year 2007. Cost per 1,000 National Guard Soldiers is
    difficult to capture based on each Soldier's varied status in the
    National Guard. For example, Soldiers mobilized for Operation Iraqi
    Freedom costs differ dramatically from a Soldier performing weekend
    drill on inactive duty for training. Efforts are ongoing regarding the
    equipment/investment (procurement) restoral, and the total amount
    depends on the final outcome of force structure adjustments.

                              EQUIPMENT READINESS

        Question. Secretary Harvey, I understand that high utilization
    rates and extreme conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to take a
    toll on military equipment. I have also been informed that
    traditionally, units returning from combat operations bring their
    equipment back with them. However, in order to minimize transportation
    costs and keep key items in the combat zone, this has not been the case
    relative to Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the 155th Separate Armor
    Brigade from Mississippi left 370 trucks, 14 wreckers, and 20
    ambulances in Iraq which impacts readiness and its ability to conduct
    training and homeland security missions along with responding to the
    Governor's call.
        Are funds requested in this budget request and in the fiscal year
    2006 Supplemental adequate to finance the repair and replacement of
    equipment damaged or destroyed during combat operations in Iraq and
    Afghanistan?
        And do they ensure the Guard, Reserve and active units have the
    equipment at their home stations necessary to maintain readiness
    ratings, conduct training and respond to homeland security missions or
    natural disasters?
        Answer. The key to our ability to sustain our long-term commitments
    at home and abroad is to reset our equipment and make near and long-
    term investments in a better equipped, more capable force. To achieve
    this, we need Congress to support our reset and investment strategies
    specified in our program and supplemental requests for fiscal years
    2006 and 2007.
        As you know, years of under-funding for the Army prior to 9/11
    resulted in a $56 billion ``hole'' in readiness across all three
    components due to insufficient modernization to fill existing
    shortfalls and emerging needs. That ``hole'' deepens due to battle
    damage and operational wear and tear. We maintain sustainment stocks in
    theater to rapidly replace battle losses in the short-term to mitigate
    risk to Soldiers and operations. We also prioritize dollars and
    equipment to deployed units, sustainment stocks, and next-deployers to
    ensure deployed Soldiers have what they need to accomplish assigned
    missions. All of this results in lower resource levels among units
    across the Army that are resetting and training for homeland or global
    operations.
        Resetting equipment through repair, recapitalization, and
    replacement is a wise and critical investment that provides Soldiers
    the equipment they need and enables the Army to accelerate its
    transformation to more capable units. However, reset requirement costs
    are over and above the normal costs to sustain the Army, and we expect
    the total reset bill for fiscal year 2006 to be nearly $13.5 billion.
    In accordance with DOD policy and intent, we rely on Supplemental
    funding to pay for our reset program.
        With previous Congressional help, we increased our depot production
    capacity for repair and recapitalization by 250 percent from where it
    was before the war, and we reset 37 brigade combat teams in the last
    two years. Many of those brigades have already returned to theater in
    their more capable, modular configuration. We have also increased and
    fenced our investment accounts for the Reserve Component to more than
    $24 billion in fiscal year 2005-11.
        Fiscal year 2007 will be pivotal for the Army. While the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense has not yet submitted a request for
    supplemental funding in fiscal year 2007, the anticipated funding in
    fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 will enable us to address reset
    while protecting our investment accounts. Resetting and investing will
    enable us to transform and provide better manned, trained, and equipped
    Army units for full spectrum operations in defense of the nation at
    home and abroad.

                      BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)

        Question. Secretary Harvey, included in last year's BRAC was the
    decision to close the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant (MSAAP) on
    Stennis Space Center. Since the facility was located on land leased
    from NASA, I understand the facility will be turned over to NASA. I
    understand NASA and the Army are in discussion concerning this
    transfer; however, it seems the two parties are at an impasse. I am
    hopeful the Ammunition Plant can be the first property transferred off
    the Army's rolls. Could you provide the subcommittee with an update on
    where the Army is in the BRAC process, to include the status of the
    Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant?
        Answer The Army is in discussions with NASA and plans are
    continuing to move the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant back to NASA
    by the end of calendar year 2006.

                         LIGHT UTILITY HELICOPTER (LUH)

        Question. Secretary Harvey, I understand the Army is in the process
    of selecting a commercial helicopter to fill the role of your Light
    Utility Helicopter to be used for non-combat missions. I congratulate
    you for deciding to use a helicopter that is already in production and
    which does not require any research and design funding. It would seem
    to me that this approach will save the taxpayers money and provide the
    Army with the needed platform in a very short period of time. Can you
    please highlight how that process is going?
        Answer. Given that the Army chose to fulfill the LUH requirements
    through the acquisition of an existing commercial available FAA
    certified aircraft the Army was able to reduce the timeline from
    concept development/refinement to acquisition to less than 36 months.
    This enables us to fulfill our commitment to modernizing the Army
    National Guard with a new light utility helicopter within the next five
    to seven years. The LUH request for proposal was released on July 26,
    2005, and the source selection activity began October 20, 2005. The
    competitive source selection is currently underway and the Army
    anticipates Milestone C and a contract award in early summer 2006.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter

                       ARMY HERITAGE AND EDUCATION CENTER

        Question. In 2001, the Army decided to incorporate a facility at
    Carlisle that would support the Army Heritage and Education Center. The
    facility would serve as both as a storage and conservation facility for
    the Army Heritage Museum collection and would serve as a conservation
    facility for the collection of historic documents and photographs Army-
    wide. This facility was initially programmed for funding in fiscal year
    2006 and according to my information is now programmed in fiscal year
    2009. Could you update me on the status of the project and explain why
    the project keeps slipping though the design of the facility is
    complete and the need for the facility remains?
        Answer. The Museum Support Facility was initially programmed for
    funding in the fiscal year 2005 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for
    fiscal year 2009 and remains in fiscal year 2009 in the current FYDP.
    The design is currently 95 percent complete and could be ready to
    advertise in approximately three months.

     NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY/ARMY HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
                         CENTER--COMPLEMENTARY PROJECTS

        Question. In November 2001, Assistant Secretary Fiori indicated
    that the National Museum of the United States Army and the United
    States Army Heritage and Education Center (AHEC) were complementary
    projects, not competitive and that they have different, but equally
    important missions. Since then, the Army has provide $5 million to
    contract with the Army Historical Foundation to raise funds for the
    National Museum of the United States Army facility while the Army
    Heritage Center Foundation which is raising funds for the AHEC has
    received no Army funding support. In supporting the Army Historical
    Foundation's fundraising effort, it appears that the Army does not
    consider that the AHEC is equally important. You have legislative
    authority to enter into agreements with the Army Heritage Center
    foundation to support the design, construction and operation of the
    AHEC. The Army Heritage Center Foundation has $10 million in matching
    funds from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to continue this project
    and the Foundation is ready to begin construction of the next phase of
    their project later this year subject to obtaining additional funds and
    grants. Does the Army support the mission of the Army Heritage and
    Education Center? Are the two facilities complimentary? What level of
    funding does the Army plan provide to contract with the Army Heritage
    Center Foundation for the continued development and expansion of the
    AHEC?
        Answer. The Army remains totally committed to both the National
    Museum of the United States Army (NMUSA) at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and
    the United States Army Heritage and Education Center (AHEC) at Carlisle
    Barracks, Pennsylvania, as equally invaluable complimentary
    institutions. The first round of construction on the AHEC, building an
    expansive, superbly designed state of the art archive, was altogether
    funded by the Army, ample testimony to the importance of the project to
    the Army. Federal funds have been identified for other aspects of the
    overall AHEC project, although much that remains to be built is to be
    built with private funds--as is also the case with the NMUSA. It is not
    true that the Army unilaterally distributed funds to the Army
    Historical Foundation to help them raise money for the Fort Belvoir
    site. Congress identified money for the Army Historical Foundation, and
    directed the Army to administer its distribution on the behalf of the
    federal government. We are happy to do so and would like to see a
    similar arrangement made for the Army Heritage Center Foundation. The
    Army is by law limited in the help it can offer private foundations
    without Congressional intervention. Both the NMUSA at Fort Belvoir and
    the AHEC at Carlisle Barracks are complex projects with multiple
    facilities to be built over time, with various mixes of federal and
    private funding. Those facilities to be built with federal funding are
    on track and reflect the Army's unwavering commitment to both the NMUSA
    and the AHEC. We would welcome whatever support Congress extends to
    both the Army Historical Foundation and the Army Heritage Center
    Foundation--or whatever direct support Congress allows the Army to
    extend.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                          IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES

        Question. One of the biggest dangers facing our troops in Iraq has
    been roadside explosives known as IEDs. They have disrupted our convoys
    and patrols, and they will likely continue to threaten the on-going
    rotation of troops in Iraq. The Army leads the Joint IED Defeat Task
    Force, which is working to find and destroy these home-made bombs.
        Does the Army have the authorities it needs to get existing
    technologies in the hands of our troops to better detect these bombs?
        If not, what authorities do you need?
        What successes have you had with this task force?
        How is the task force finding, testing, and deploying new
    technologies?
        Answer. Mr. Chairman, I have asked the Director, Joint IED Defeat
    Organization (JIEDDO) to respond to your concerns.

                    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) INVESTMENTS

        Question. Would you please comment on the importance of basic S&T
    investments for transformation?
        Answer. The goal of the Army Science and Technology (S&T) program
    is to achieve transformational capabilities that will enable the future
    force while pursuing opportunities to enhance current force
    capabilities. The U.S. Army's single largest S&T investment focuses on
    enabling technologies to field the initial Future Combat Systems
    Brigade Combat Team and follow-on technology insertions.
        Question. Does the Army have the funding it needs to invest in
    basic science and technology?
        Answer. With the Army fully engaged in the Global War on Terror, we
    are challenged to satisfy the resource demands to sustain current
    operations while simultaneously maintaining our S&T investments in the
    most important technologies to enable capabilities for the future
    modular force. However, the Army S&T program is funded consistent with
    the ability to mature technologies synchronized with funding resources
    we are provided to execute our acquisition programs.

                           FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM (FCS)

        Question. Can you comment on what types of project will be tested
    at White Sands?
        Answer. The currently approved FCS test and evaluation master plan
    details the categories of testing currently planned to be conducted at
    the U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). All categories of
    equipment and systems in the FCS program will be tested at White Sands,
    to include manned combat and support vehicles, unmanned ground and
    aerial vehicles, sensors, and networking components. Within these
    categories, all of the FCS Platforms/systems will be tested as
    individual systems and in a system of systems environment. There are
    also 52 complimentary programs which will also participate in FCS
    system of system level testing at WSMR. These include weapon systems,
    vehicles, sensors, and communication systems. The specific categories
    of testing includes: component level specialty testing utilizing WSMR
    unique test capabilities; field experiments, which serve as program
    risk reduction efforts; Spin-Out Capability Testing for the Current
    Forces, which will begin to integrate FCS technologies into the current
    force; System of System Testing for the FCS BCT; and finally, system
    level Integrated Qualification Testing.
        Question. Do you know how much FCS testing will be conducted at
    White Sands?
        Answer. Due to the unique size and location of White Sands, the
    Army envisions conducting almost all of the system-of-systems or unit
    level testing at White Sands ranges and the adjacent Fort Bliss ranges.
    This allows experimentation and testing in an environment that provides
    an operational setting close to that envisioned for some key
    employments of the FCS Brigade Combat Team (BCT). The FCS systems,
    system-of-systems, and BCT will be experimented with, and tested at all
    unit levels up to the brigade level at White Sands. Technical component
    system level testing will be conducted at White Sands within the
    construct of their capabilities, to include electromagnetics, software,
    and unmanned systems. This technical testing will be augmented by that
    conducted throughout the Army major range and test facility base
    infrastructure as appropriate, based on unique expertise and
    facilities. This testing will be conducted on a two-year integration
    phase cycle with increasing complexity as the FCS program matures.
        Question. What does the Army need to coordinate work between Fort
    Bliss and White Sands Missile Range?
        Answer. The development, training and testing of a FCS-equipped
    force is a significant task, but from a test/training event
    coordination perspective, it is one that is not dissimilar from other
    major Army exercises such as Roving Sands. These large-scale events
    were successful only as a result of the close communication and
    coordination between Fort Bliss and WSMR. With the large area of
    operations and its doctrinal employment, it is anticipated the fully
    capable FCS-equipped brigade in the SO4/initial operational test and
    evaluation timeframe will require the use of essentially 100 percent of
    the WSMR and Fort Bliss airspace and approximately 80 percent of the
    Fort Bliss land-space and 75 percent of the WSMR land space (in area
    and 100 percent in distance). Of course these are a function of the
    scenarios and development objectives, including disparately operating
    the FCS System of Systems across the required area of operations.
    Additionally, the FCS development will require integrated frequency
    management, scheduling, and ranges across WSMR and Fort Bliss, as well
    as portability of instrumentation test assets from WSMR and
    Developmental Test Center (DTC). The WSMR and Fort Bliss have conducted
    regular interchanges in the past and continue to coordinate on emerging
    detailed requirements with an objective of establishing processes for
    integrated asset and operations support to the Army and the FCS
    development. This is simply an expansion of historical and on-going
    coordination and use of the combined capabilities. As an example, plans
    are being formulated to integrate airspace management and scheduling
    into the tri-service air traffic control center at WSMR to provide a
    regional airspace utilization operations capability for the Army
    (inducing FCS), Navy and Air Force RDT&E and training. Given all of
    this information and the associated coordination required, much work
    has already occurred between the two installations and the PM FCS (BCT)
    leadership. At this time, the Army does not anticipate any assistance
    required with coordination between the two installations and their
    respective organizations.
        Question. What can White Sands Missile Range, Holloman Air Force
    Base, and New Mexico do to help the Army with FCS testing?
        Answer. White Sands Missile Range can continue to support the
    Program Manager, FCS in the planning process and the execution of the
    FCS Testing in accordance with the current test and evaluation master
    plan. As the detailed test plans are developed, a more complete request
    for assistance may be provided.
        Question. On a related note, what will the Army's decision to
    expand its presence at Fort Bliss mean in terms of growth and increased
    activity in New Mexico?
        Answer. From a test perspective there will be a permanent presence
    established to support planning and resource development and
    coordination. The exact numbers of personnel are yet to be determined,
    but as indicated above, there will be personnel at WSMR by the summer
    of 2006. As each program test event is executed there will be a surge
    of effort to support, namely in personnel. These events will take place
    as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Lastly, given the complexity
    of the FCS program and the magnitude of the test events, the surge in
    personnel supporting the test events will number in the 100s. With the
    central test control residing on WSMR and an aggressive test schedule
    over the next three years, it is likely this increase in personnel will
    provide a positive economic impact/growth to New Mexico.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns

                                 NATIONAL GUARD

        Question. I fully support your goal of having a fully equipped and
    fully manned National Guard that is every bit as capable as its active
    component. Can you highlight your plan to transform the National Guard?
        Answer. The Army National Guard (ARNG) is simultaneously
    transforming with the active component into the modular force design.
    This is important as it is the first step along the way to ensuring
    that all three components, active, Guard, and Reserve, are
    interoperable on the battlefield. It started with the acceleration of
    the ARNG's modular force conversion as approved by the Vice Chief of
    Staff of the Army on June 9, 2005. As approved, all brigade combat
    teams will complete organizational conversion by fiscal year 2008. But
    this action only addresses unit design and manning; it does not
    complete the equipping for those brigades. To make the ARNG as capable
    as the active component, a serious investment into its equipment
    modernization is required. To address longstanding equipment shortages,
    the Army has programmed $21 billion from fiscal year 2005 through
    fiscal year 2011 for ARNG procurement to ensure that the ARNG is
    properly equipped to perform effectively as the Army's operational
    reserve. Additionally, the Army will leverage the Army Force Generation
    model to provide ARNG units a predictable time sequence for potential
    mobilization. This initiative has the benefit of focusing resources and
    training to ensure the readiness of those units that are scheduled for
    mobilization. Lastly, the restructuring of the ARNG is an important
    step to ensuring that the ARNG is properly manned. In the last couple
    of years, the Army, working with the ARNG, has eliminated its
    historical over-structure in order to align structure and manning
    within its authorized end strength of 350,000. These significant force
    structure adjustments and resource investments advance the Army's
    intent of ensuring every ARNG unit is fully equipped, fully trained,
    and fully manned.
                                    SOLDIERS

        Question. As I already mentioned, our troops on the ground are our
    focus. Can you discuss how your spiral development and fielding plan is
    getting new equipment and technologies to our soldiers as quickly as
    possible?
        Answer. Nothing is more important than ensuring our Soldiers have
    the best equipment to accomplish their mission. The Army is adapting
    processes to rapidly enhance the capabilities of our units and Soldiers
    in the complex operational environments of Operations Iraqi Freedom and
    Enduring Freedom. This has the emphasis of all senior leaders and is an
    Army-wide, enterprise level effort.
        We rapidly respond to capability requirements from the field and
    constantly assess and improve fielded equipment. Effective capability
    development is more than just inserting materiel solutions, and
    requires a holistic approach that includes the integration of training,
    sustainment, organizational, and doctrinal changes.
        Army organizations have partnered to rapidly develop, assess and
    field capability to the force. Organizations such as the Army G3's
    Rapid Equipping Force, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command's Spiral
    Developments Division, U.S. Army Army Materiel Command's Research,
    Development and Engineering Command and the U.S. Army Test and
    Evaluation Command, have developed processes that support accelerated
    capability development. Other partners in this effort are the Assistant
    Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology; the
    Joint community; and Industry.
        We have had successes in a number of areas particularly in the area
    of force protection. This has been done through the development and
    fielding of systems through route clearance companies consisting of
    vehicles such as the Buffalo and RG31, Counter-Remote-Controlled-IED
    Electronic Warfare systems (CREW), small robots such as PACKBOT, an
    Improved First Aid Kit (IFAK), an unmanned aerial vehicles and other
    Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance and command and control
    systems.
        The efforts of these organizations have also produced a Counter
    Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM) capability currently in use in
    theater, and training enhancements that ensure our Soldiers are better
    prepared for the asymmetric challenges in the current operational
    environment.
        To better address the asymmetric challenges, the Army recently
    organized the Asymmetric Warfare Office, under the Army G3, to lead the
    effort in developing the necessary policy, programs, and resources to
    stay in front of these types of threats.
        Our organizational and process changes are paying off. We are
    better able to quickly react to the changing battlefield, ensuring our
    Soldiers have the best equipment our nation can provide.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

                                   WAR COSTS

        Question. Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Pentagon officials,
    including Secretary Rumsfeld, estimated that the total cost of the Iraq
    War would not surpass $50 to $60 billion. As you know, to date, the
    cost of combat operations in Iraq has reached about $250 billion, and
    that number could well surpass $300 billion by the end of the year.
    Unfortunately, the Pentagon has not provided Congress any war funding
    estimates past fiscal year 2007.
        First, in this age of rising budget deficits, can you provide this
    Committee any type of estimate of what level of future funding will be
    necessary from the Congress to appropriately pay for the costs of this
    ongoing war?
        Answer. In the short term, we anticipate the costs of this ongoing
    war to remain at current levels. I cannot estimate future costs, which
    will be driven by the size of the coalition force in Iraq and the level
    and duration of the conflict. As the Iraqi forces accept increasing
    responsibility for the security of their country, our forces will
    withdraw and costs for military operations will decline accordingly.
    However, the Army will require funding to reset our force for an
    estimated two years beyond that timeframe.
        Question. Why does the Administration continue to rely almost
    entirely on emergency supplementals to fund the war?
        Answer. From the Army perspective, base budgeting requires a
    generally stable operational environment with predictable costs. That
    is not the case with our operations in Iraq. In addition, we anticipate
    significant changes in future funding requirements as we shift from an
    operational presence to resetting the force.
        Question. Wouldn't you agree that the American taxpayers deserve to
    know upfront--through the regular base budget--the amount of money that
    is going to the war effort? Or do you believe it is fair to continue
    the reliance on this budget gimmickry?
        Answer. The regular base budget provides comprehensive information
    on the costs to sustain America's Army across a generally stable
    period. The war effort is not part of that base, but represents the
    added costs to fulfill our role in supporting the combatant commanders.

                       TRAINING OF IRAQI SECURITY FORCES

        Question. Secretary of State Rice and Chairman of the Joint Chief
    of Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, have both suggested in recent
    days that it is likely that the military will drawdown troop levels
    sometime this year. Last fall General Casey, the top commander in Iraq,
    stated that a reduction in American troops would take ``away an element
    that fuels the insurgency.'' Does the Army plan to reduce its
    endstrength in Iraq this year? Next year?
        Answer. In accordance with title 10 U.S. Code, the Army is charged
    with organizing, manning, training, and equipping a force capable of
    fulfilling current and future Secretary of Defense approved
    requirements of combatant commanders. Thus, the Army force scheduled to
    deploy in future rotations to Iraq is conditional upon periodic
    strategic and operational assessments from the Commander, U.S. Central
    Command (CENTCOM). The number and type of forces requested by the
    CENTCOM commander may fluctuate as the political, economic, and
    security conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan evolve over time.
        Question. How do you think that a reduction in the number of
    American forces would affect the rise in sectarian violence in Iraq?
        Answer. Senator, this question should be referred to the Commander,
    U.S. Central Command for response.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Inouye. The subcommittee will reconvene tomorrow at
    10 o'clock in the morning, when we will hear from the
    Department of the Air Force. And, until then, we'll stand in
    recess. And I thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., Tuesday, March 28, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    March 29.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senator Stevens, Domenici, Shelby, Burns, Inouye,
    Dorgan, and Feinstein.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                          Department of the Air Force

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENTS OF:
            HON. MICHAEL W. WYNNE, SECRETARY
            GENERAL T. MICHAEL MOSELEY, CHIEF OF STAFF

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary and
    General, for bringing along some of the young men and women who
    have returned from service in the war zone. We appreciate the
    opportunity to have photographs taken so we can put them on the
    committee's web site. We're delighted to have an opportunity to
    listen to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force
    Chief of Staff. I believe this is the first time you've
    appeared before our subcommittee.
        Senator Inouye, our co-chair, is at another markup on the
    Indian Affairs Committee, so he will be late today.
        The Air Force continues to support our Nation's forces in
    Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the world, as well as
    remain vigilant to protect the United States in the airspace
    and cyberspace. The Air Force currently has more than 200,000
    airmen deployed worldwide in support of the combatant
    commanders. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the Air Force is flying
    more than 200 sorties a day, providing close air support,
    theater airlift, intelligence support, refueling, and
    aeromedical evacuation of our wounded people. At the same time,
    you're confronted with the difficult tasks of modernization and
    recapitalizing the Air Force.
        We note in your posture statement that the Air Force is
    maintaining the oldest aircraft in its history. The average age
    now of an aircraft in the Air Force is 23 years. The
    subcommittee has begun its review of the fiscal year 2007
    defense budget. In your posture statement, you state that your
    priorities for the Air Force are to win the global war on
    terror, to develop and care for our airmen, and to modernize
    and recapitalize the aircraft and equipment.
        The budget before us requests a total now of $105.9
    billion. This is $4.8 billion, or 4.7 percent, greater than the
    amount that was enacted for the current year. That's a lot of
    money. It's a large increase in fiscal year 2007, in this
    period of high deficits. However we recognize your challenges
    are not small, and the country is fortunate to be able to call
    upon your leadership for our Air Force.
        Secretary Wynne, General Moseley, we're looking forward to
    hearing about your budget priorities and how you are
    positioning the Air Force for tomorrow. I want to thank you,
    personally, for your visit to us, telling us of some of your
    problems and some of your goals and how we should work together
    to achieve them.
        We'll leave room in our record, at this point, for the
    statement of our co-chairman, when he arrives.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye

        Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our Air Force
    leaders. General Mosley, Secretary Wynne we thank you for being
    here today.
        In your budget submission last year, the recommendations to
    truncate plans for the F-22 and C-130 were controversial
    matters that eventually were overturned.
        This year you are proposing to terminate the C-17 and the
    second source engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. Again,
    gentlemen, your request is not without controversy.
        We will need to understand the rationale for these
    proposals and your candid views on how we in the Congress
    should respond. We would expect that today's hearing would
    provide a forum to address these issues.
        Mr. Secretary, I want to take this opportunity to remind
    everyone of the great support the Air Force is providing for
    Operation Noble Eagle here at home, and Operations Enduring
    Freedom and Iraqi Freedom overseas. As is to be expected, the
    media and my colleagues focus on the role played by the Army
    and marines on the ground, but without your support they would
    be a lot worse off.
        Gentlemen, we appreciate all the men and women in the Air
    Force are doing for our Nation. We cannot be more grateful for
    the sacrifices that you make every day.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing and I
    await the testimony of our witnesses.

        Senator Stevens. And I'll turn to Senator Burns for any
    statement he may wish to make.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for the
    hearing. And welcome, Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. It's
    good to see you this morning.
        Mr. Secretary, I applaud your efforts to redirect the Air
    Force to address some of the challenges that we face today.
    We're facing different challenges, as you well know. And,
    unfortunately, I believe that you've got more than a tough job
    ahead of you. I've looked at it every now and again, and I've
    said, ``I certainly don't--wouldn't have your job right now,''
    because you're trying to do a lot of things.
        Many of us in Congress have seen the Air Force struggling,
    in these past 4 or 5 years, to find a core mission and
    direction. Your mission statement talks of ``sovereign
    options.'' I will tell you how that term hit me. My eyes glazed
    over, and then I went home and shampooed, trying to make some
    sense of it. Now, I don't know what a ``sovereign option'' is
    right now.
        We're presently engaged in a global war. And it's a long
    war. It isn't a war of air dominance. And, frankly, we've never
    had a war of air dominance. Wars are won on the ground, as you
    well know. And this one has taken on a completely different
    character than anything we've ever faced before. Our success in
    Iraq and Afghanistan will be solely based on the success of
    those boots-on-the-ground kind of operation.
        In practice, I see that--our airmen in today's Air Force
    are leaning forward to accomplish that mission. In contrast,
    the senior leadership of the Air Force seems to be detached
    from the reality of what this operation is all about.
        The measure of every branch of the Armed Forces in this war
    is its ability to support the efforts on the ground. This is
    where I, and many others, part ways from the direction the Air
    Force seems to be going. The future of the Air Force is in the
    service to the mission on the ground. It is in support of our
    young corporals and sergeants engaged in the real fight.
    Unfortunately, it seems many of the senior leaders are
    reluctant to recognize that waves of Russian fighters will not
    be coming over the horizon anytime soon. The future of the Air
    Force is not the main effort of the fight, but it is that of a
    supporting arm.
        Transporting much-needed supplies to the troops, providing
    air support for convoys on the ground, and getting ground
    commanders the imagery they need in realtime are all critical
    missions. And I'm concerned that the future years' budgets of
    the Air Force continue to shortchange those missions, which
    is--by their very nature, are support missions for the more
    glamorous missions of air dominance.
        The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), talks of irregular,
    catastrophic, and disruptive threats. These are the threats we
    face today. These are the threats we need the focus of our
    Nation's treasure on addressing the future. And probably, from
    that statement, you said I'm concerned about several elements
    in the direction of which we are going.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I have a couple of
    very pointed questions, and then I'll put my saber back in the
    scabbard and move on.
        Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Mr. Secretary and General, we appreciate your statements.
    They'll print in the record in full, as though read, but
    we'll--take as much time as you wish.
        I want to congratulate you on this posture statement. I've
    gone over that, and it's really a very good one. We appreciate
    the work you've put into that statement. I hope the Senate and
    the House will pay attention to it.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye.
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and members of the
    subcommittee, especially Senator Burns, thank you for having
    General Moseley and me here today to testify on behalf of
    America's Air Force. We are grateful for this subcommittee's
    steadfast support our Nation's airmen and their families.
        I've seen our innovative and adaptable airmen--Active,
    Guard, and Reserve--firsthand, and I am inspired by their
    commitment and their patriotism. Nevertheless, as I told you
    back in October, our Air Force is challenged with trying to get
    6 pounds into a 5-pound sack.
        I have broken these challenges down into three critical
    components. First, personnel costs of an All Volunteer Force
    are accelerating because of the expanding benefits and the
    rising healthcare costs. Next, operations and maintenance costs
    continue to rise. We are experiencing unyielding second-order
    effects that continue to drain our top line. Simply stated, we
    are exhausting all of our assets at a much higher rate than we
    had forecast, and absorbing costs to organize, train, and equip
    for evolving new missions. Last, our investment accounts of
    acquisition and research and development face severe pressure
    as a result of the foregoing must-pay bills. Nevertheless, we
    continue to mobilize fast and creative responses to achieve the
    technology and interdependence required to dominate in the
    global war on terrorism and threats beyond.
        So, where does our solution lie? With your assistance, we
    will responsibly attack all three challenges. To rein in
    personnel costs, we're using total force integration. Started
    in the mid-1990s, it has exposed redundancies to capitalize on
    what we continue to operationalize the Guard and the Reserve.
    ``Mission first'' continues to be our beacon while partnering
    with them. In fact, we have recently delivered the post-base
    realignment and closure (BRAC) phase II mission laydown, which
    has been cosigned by the Active, the National Guard Bureau, and
    the Reserve commanders.
        In addition to using our people more efficiently through
    total force integration, we instituted Air Force Smart
    Operations 21, smarter and leaner operations. No process or
    organizational construct is immune from this Air Force-wide
    critical review. Efficiencies from Air Force Smart Operations
    21, total force integration, and lessons learned from 15 years
    under fire permit an end-strength reduction of 40,000 full-time
    equivalents across the future years defense plan (FYDP). Using
    our manpower smarter is the key to retention and the key to
    force management.
        Air Force Smart Operations 21 will also help us with our
    second challenge, operations and maintenance price increases.
    But smarter operations cannot overcome the elephant in the
    room. Fuel and upkeep for aircraft with decreasing military
    utility, aircraft with 1950s-era engines and design expose us
    to soaring fuel-cost prices, increased maintenance, and
    obsolete spares suppliers. Many planes are simply not
    deployable due to declining military utility.
        We can harvest savings from cutting requirements,
    redundancies, and excess capacity in our aircraft and missile
    fleets. This lets me keep the force robust, while shifting
    resources to new missions, like Predator, Global Hawk, and Long
    Range Strike. I need this type of flexibility. And this is
    where I ask for your help. I need your help in lifting the
    legislative restrictions on retirements that prevent me from
    being the air-fleet manager that you expect me to be.
        I think we have some illustrations here on the charts to
    our side.
        Right now, these restrictions apply to nearly 15 percent of
    our air fleet. Continued restrictive language will not only
    impede the shift to new missions now, but will lead to
    exhausting resources on aircraft with declining military
    utility, and ultimately impact our technological edge for the
    future.
        The final part of this 6-pound problem is within our
    investment accounts, acquisition and research and development.
    I reiterate my commitment to restore the Air Force to its
    premier status in acquisition and governance. And we continue
    to concentrate in this area.
        The F-22A program illustrates the pressure our acquisition
    budget faces in the best way. Having been convinced of the
    goodness of maintaining a fifth-generation fighter production
    line until the F-35 is a proven commodity, the result called
    for a 2-year extension, but only four additional aircraft in
    the 3-year multiyear, to recover the cost of the lower volume
    and with the funding laid out as you see it. We recognize that
    this is an excursion from established procedure, and ask your
    support in working through this issue.
        Similarly, we can't ignore our research and investment--the
    research and development investment stream, even while at war.
    Along with air dominance, space, and cyberspace, research and
    development investment is key to the future independent--
    interdependent warfight. Investment today provides the gateway
    to tomorrow's dominance.
        In summary, personnel, operations and maintenance, and our
    investment accounts of acquisition and research and development
    are our targets. Despite 15 years of continuous combat since
    Operation Desert Storm, we have transformed our force like no
    other. With total force integration, Air Force Smart Operations
    21, and your help, we will keep the title of the world's most
    agile and lethal air force. Our commitment is to increase the
    aggregate military utility across the total spectrum of
    operations for the joint force commander. This means
    modernizing, recapitalizing, and recognizing efficiencies as we
    manage this total force.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you for your strong commitment to our Air Force and
    to the common defense. I look forward to your questions.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Michael W. Wynne

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, the Air
    Force has a rich heritage and a boundless future. The Service continues
    its transformation to meet the emerging challenges of a dynamic world,
    and to ensure the nation's security by dominating the global commons of
    air, space and cyberspace. The fiscal year 2007 budget takes a
    significant step toward that future.
        We are America's Airmen. Our mission is to deliver sovereign
    options for the defense of the United States of America and its global
    interests--we fly and we fight--in air, space and cyberspace. For the
    past 15 years, our Air Force team has proven its mettle and skill every
    day. Since the days of DESERT STORM, we have been globally and
    continuously engaged in combat. We will continue to show the same
    ingenuity, courage and resolve and achieve success in our three most
    important challenges: winning the Global War on Terror (GWOT);
    developing and caring for our Airmen; and maintaining, modernizing and
    recapitalizing our aircraft and equipment.
        In the GWOT we face vile enemies--enemies devoid of any positive
    vision of the future, who seek only to destroy the United States and
    the ideals and freedoms upon which America is built. We will win this
    fight. We will maintain our focus on winning this fight. While
    maintaining focus on winning the GWOT we will also maintain vigilance--
    vigilance in defense of our homeland and vigilance against emerging
    threats in an uncertain world.
        Our expeditionary fighting forces and culture, centered on the Air
    and Space Expeditionary Force, provide the foundation for our
    operations. We will more closely align our Regular Air Force, Air
    National Guard and Air Force Reserve units with Total Force initiatives
    to enhance our overall capability. We will continue transforming to
    meet the challenges of a dynamic world.
        We will remain focused on caring for and developing our Airmen--our
    most valuable resource. We will continue to look for ways to maintain
    and improve their training, their personal and professional development
    and their quality of life, so they may continue to meet the commitments
    of today while preparing for the challenges of tomorrow.
        We are operating the oldest inventory of aircraft in our history,
    while maintaining the intense Operations Tempo required by the GWOT,
    humanitarian crises, and routine requirements. Meanwhile, competitor
    states are developing air and air defense systems that could threaten
    our ability to maintain air and space dominance. These factors drive
    the urgent need to modernize and recapitalize our aircraft. We must act
    now to preserve our Nation's freedom of action in the future. The
    Secretary of Defense described future threats in terms of four
    quadrants--traditional, irregular, catastrophic and disruptive. We must
    develop, acquire and maintain systems that can counter threats in any
    of these quadrants. We will do so by incorporating lean principles that
    eliminate waste while providing transparency in our processes.
        Our 2006 Posture Statement outlines our plan to accomplish these
    goals regarding GWOT, our Airmen, and our aircraft and equipment. It
    reflects our commitment to good stewardship of the resources entrusted
    to us, and our dedication to protecting our Nation in air, space and
    cyberspace.

                       INTRODUCTION--HERITAGE TO HORIZON

        Over a century ago, America crossed the threshold of powered flight
    and gave wings to the world. Soon military leaders realized the
    implications of this development, and warfare was changed forever.
    America was fortunate to have ``Great Captains'' with the vision to
    imagine the possibilities of air and space power--Airmen like Billy
    Mitchell, Frank Andrews, Hap Arnold, Ira Eaker, Jimmy Doolittle and
    Bennie Schriever. They have given us a proud heritage of courage,
    excellence and innovation. In so doing, they also give us a sense of
    perspective and a way to understand the Air Force's future.
        They have shown us an unlimited horizon. Each of them lived in
    dangerous times and faced many demanding challenges. Today, we also
    find ourselves as a Nation and an Air Force facing similarly dangerous
    and demanding challenges. Some are global or national in scope; others
    are specific to the Air Force.
        During the last decade the United States Air Force transformed to a
    modular expeditionary force of ten Air and Space Expeditionary Force
    (AEF) packages providing agile air and space power. Our Airmen have
    proven tremendously successful across the spectrum of operations from
    humanitarian efforts to Homeland Defense operations and the Global War
    on Terrorism. We will continue transforming to meet the challenges of a
    dynamic world by rebalancing the force and realigning our structure
    into a Total Force that meets increased demands for persistent
    intelligence, rapid mobility and precision strike capabilities. The AEF
    construct provides the ideal toolbox from which we can provide
    tailored, efficient and lethal air and space forces to deal with future
    challenges.
        The Air Force faces the broadest set of mission requirements across
    the entire spectrum of warfare. We will bolster our Nation's ability to
    respond swiftly, flexibly and decisively to asymmetric, irregular and
    emerging threats. We have embarked on a bold, new initiative known as
    Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century (AFSO21) as a means to
    best allocate our resources to meet this increasing set of challenges.
    All of these challenges will require the very best efforts of our
    Airmen throughout the Total Force.
    Winning the Global War on Terror (GWOT)
        Our first priority is to maintain focus on winning the GWOT. We
    will continue to operate as part of a true Joint and Coalition team,
    multiplying the effectiveness of our partners to win this war. We fly
    and we fight--whether we're flying A-10s over Afghanistan; flying F-16s
    over Iraq; operating and maneuvering communications satellites in
    geosynchronous orbit; remotely piloting Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
    patrolling over Baghdad; or maintaining vigilance over our Nation's
    homeland in an E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)
    aircraft. All Airmen, no matter what their specialty, contribute to
    this mission.
        We must keep in mind that the GWOT is not defined by today's
    headlines or locations. It will be a long war, with shifting venues and
    constantly evolving threats. The character and capabilities of
    potential U.S. adversaries are increasingly uncertain, veiled, growing
    and changing, as both state and non-state actors acquire advanced
    technology and the means to either acquire or develop weapons of mass
    destruction (WMDs).
        We can foresee serious threats posed by increasing numbers and
    sophistication of ballistic and cruise missiles; chemical, biological,
    radiological and nuclear weapons; advanced surface-to-air missiles
    (SAMs); and sophisticated combat aircraft. We also anticipate the real
    threat of potentially crippling attacks on our Nation's critical
    infrastructure, including space networks. Not only must we be prepared
    to confront known threats, but we also must be ready for unexpected,
    disruptive breakthroughs in technology that may undercut traditional
    U.S. advantages.
        Maintaining a strong defense able to overcome and defeat these
    threats remains an imperative for our Nation. Currently, the Air Force
    can command the global commons of air and space and significantly
    influence the global commons of the sea and cyberspace; however, we
    cannot indefinitely maintain this advantage using the current
    technology of the air and space systems and equipment comprising our
    existing force structure.
    Developing and Caring for Our Airmen
        Our Regular Air Force Airmen, Air National Guardsmen, Air Force
    Reservists and civilians, who together form our Total Force, are
    building on their inheritance of courage, excellence and innovation.
    They are highly educated and resourceful, and have created the most
    lethal Air Force that has ever existed. We must continue to look for
    ways to maintain and improve their training, their personal and
    professional development and their quality of life, so that they may
    continue to meet the commitments of today while preparing for the
    challenges of tomorrow.
        Airmen today are contributing to combat operations in ways never
    before envisioned--as convoy drivers and escorts, detainee guards and
    translators to give a few examples. Other Airmen routinely serve
    ``outside the wire'' as Special Tactics operators, Joint Terminal
    Attack Controllers and Special Operations Weather personnel. All of
    these Airmen must receive the proper training to survive, fight and
    win. We are working within the Air Force, as well as with our Joint
    warfighting partners, to ensure that all Airmen are fully prepared when
    they arrive in the combat zone.
        Developing Airmen involves more than combat skills. It is a career-
    long process that maximizes the potential of each member of the Total
    Force team. We will look at every Airman as an individual and provide
    them with specialized training, relevant educational opportunities and
    appropriate assignments in order to capitalize on the talent these
    brave Airmen offer for this country's defense.
        Every Airman is a vital national resource and must be cared for as
    such. In addition to providing professional opportunities for our
    Airmen and fostering an environment of mutual respect, the Air Force is
    committed to investing in health and fitness programs and facilities,
    world class medical access and care, and housing and morale programs
    for our Airmen. Our Airmen have proven themselves to be the best
    America has to offer--they deserve the best support available.
        By ensuring that our Airmen are prepared for combat, effectively
    developed and properly supported, we will continue to provide our
    Nation with the best Air Force in the world.
    Maintenance, Modernization and Recapitalization
        One of our most daunting challenges is maintaining the military
    utility of our aircraft as reflected in mission readiness, maintenance
    costs and other factors. We have been actively engaged in combat for
    the past 15 years. We currently maintain an Air Bridge to Southwest
    Asia. Our state of alert for GWOT requires us to operate at an elevated
    and sustained operations tempo (OPSTEMPO). Increased investment and
    increased maintenance tempo can keep our older aircraft flying and slow
    their decaying military utility, but equipment age and use are
    unrelenting factors.
        Presently, we have the oldest aircraft inventory in our history.
    Our aircraft are an average of over 23 years old--older in many cases
    than those who fly and maintain them. In particular, our inventory of
    tanker aircraft averages over 41 years old, and our C-130 tactical
    airlifters average over 25 years old. As our equipment ages, it
    requires more frequent maintenance and replacement of parts; meanwhile,
    increased OPSTEMPO accelerates wear and tear on our equipment and
    operational infrastructure, exposes our equipment to extreme conditions
    and, in some cases, delays routine maintenance.
        We must recapitalize our aircraft and operational infrastructure,
    as well as modernize our processes for services, support and
    information delivery in order to maintain the grueling pace required
    into the foreseeable future. We must do so in a fiscally prudent
    manner. This means retiring and replacing our oldest, least capable and
    most expensive aircraft and equipment, as well as accepting a
    manageable level of risk in order to selectively maintain some older
    systems until newer systems are on the ramp.
        These newer systems will cost far less to operate and maintain and
    are designed to defeat emerging threats. The United States no longer
    enjoys a monopoly on advanced technology, and we are already witnessing
    the emergence of highly sophisticated systems that threaten our
    capability to achieve Joint Air and Space Dominance. Along with ongoing
    robust science and technology (S&T) programs, transformational systems
    such as the F-22A Raptor, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Space Radar
    (SR) and Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) will ensure
    that we maintain the ability to provide overwhelming air and space
    power for our Combatant Commanders.
        Concurrently, the Air Force is also focusing on reforming,
    modernizing, and improving processes for acquisition of new systems and
    equipment. We will achieve greater efficiencies and higher productivity
    by reforming our business practices. By incorporating lean processes
    and transparent accounting, and reinforcing a culture of continuous
    improvement, the Air Force will maintain the high standards of our
    heritage. We will continue our tradition of transformation, realize
    both lethality and efficiency in our capabilities in this new century,
    and stand ready for the challenges of the future.
        The future is what you bring with you when tomorrow comes. Our 2006
    Air Force Posture Statement outlines our flight plan into the future.
    By focusing on winning the GWOT, maintaining the excellence and
    maximizing the potential of the America's Airmen, and maintaining,
    modernizing and recapitalizing our aircraft and equipment, we will
    provide Air and Space Dominance for U.S. forces well into the future.

              AIR AND SPACE POWER TODAY--BUILDING ON OUR HERITAGE

    Current Security Environment
        The current security environment is marked by seemingly constant
    change and uncertainty. Our security environment is also marked by the
    threats posed by terrorist organizations and rogue states around the
    world bearing ill will toward our Nation. In times of uncertainty and
    heightened threat, our citizens turn to the military to defend this
    great Nation at home and abroad. Our Airmen stand alongside Soldiers,
    Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen--a Joint team poised and ready to
    defend the Nation.
        Throughout the history of American air and space power, Airmen have
    often faced complex challenges during times of change and uncertainty--
    times when our Nation's survival was at stake. In early 1945, General
    ``Hap'' Arnold reported to the Secretary of War, ``our Air Force must
    be flexible in its basic structure and capable of successfully adapting
    itself to the vast changes which are bound to come in the future.
    Whatever its numerical size may be, it must be second to none in range
    and striking power.'' In retrospect, Hap Arnold's words were amazingly
    prescient.
        Today our force is still second to none in range and striking
    power. Potential adversaries, well aware of the strength of our Air
    Force, seek to limit our range and striking power through development
    of new and emerging threat systems. These systems, coupled with the
    proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, form a formidable threat
    to the Joint Force and to our Nation.
        In order to achieve victory in the GWOT and meet the challenges of
    emerging threats, the Air Force looks to build on the great heritage
    established by decades of Airmen--Airmen who have confronted daunting
    challenges and succeeded as vital members of the Joint warfighting
    team.
                Global War on Terror (GWOT)
        Several key elements--ideologies of hatred, vast resources, mutual
    support structures, as well as veiled state and private sponsorship--
    provide linkages across the array of enemies confronting us in the
    GWOT. The general terrorist threat also spans several regions of the
    world, often acting on a global scale. While the strategy to prosecute
    and win the GWOT is an enterprise necessarily involving many agencies
    and actions in addition to military forces, the Air Force, in
    particular, serves a vital role in our Nation's battle against
    terrorist networks.
        America's Airmen have become seasoned veterans of Post-Cold War
    conflicts and are postured to answer any contingency or challenge on a
    moments' notice. The Air Force has been taking the war to America's
    enemies for 15 consecutive years. Our constant presence in Southwest
    Asia since Operation DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM kept regional
    instability in check. Airpower effectively controlled two-thirds of
    Iraq for over a decade, setting the conditions for Iraq's stunning
    military collapse in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.
        Recognizing the new reality of rapidly emerging global threats in
    the Post-Cold War environment, the Air Force has significantly reduced
    its force structure and transitioned from a Cold War legacy paradigm to
    a vastly more agile, responsive and scalable force structure built
    around the AEF concept. The AEF construct provides the Combatant
    Commanders and the Joint Force with the agility and lethality required
    to engage U.S. adversaries anywhere in the world with correctly
    tailored forces--all in a matter of hours to single-digit days. The AEF
    construct presents air and space forces in a continuous rotation
    cycle--currently a 20-month cycle with nominal 4-month deployments--and
    provides the Combatant Commands with greater capability and stability
    of forces in theater while providing more predictability for our
    Airmen.
        As defined by our national leadership, the GWOT strategy seeks to
    reduce both the scope and capability of terrorist networks globally,
    regionally and locally. This strategy requires global perspective and
    regional focus. It also demands an ability to simultaneously conduct
    long-range strikes and humanitarian relief on opposite sides of the
    world. In order to execute effectively, the strategy requires
    unparalleled command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
    surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR). These are all activities our
    Air Force conducts for the Joint Force on a daily basis--activities
    critical to successfully prosecuting the GWOT.
        As an essential part of the Joint team, the Air Force contributed
    to defeating the Taliban and eliminating Afghanistan as a safe haven
    for al Qaeda. While the Air Force remains actively engaged in
    operations in Afghanistan, our national strategy is simultaneously
    focused on Iraq as the central front for the war on terror. While the
    United States and its partners have defeated Saddam Hussein's regime of
    terror, the enemies of freedom--both members of the old regime and
    foreign terrorists who have come to Iraq--are making a desperate
    attempt in the name of tyranny and fascism to terrorize, destabilize
    and reclaim this newly-liberated nation and aspiring democracy.
        The Air Force continues to lead the fight in defending the home
    front as well. The Air Force recently conducted an Air Force-Navy
    strategy conference addressing the GWOT and counterinsurgencies. The
    conference report forms the basis for an ongoing Air Force study to
    further improve the Air Force's posture for Homeland Defense. The Air
    Force has also taken a leadership role in developing a Concept of
    Operations for Joint Maritime Interdiction to defend our shores and
    those of our allies. In addition, Air Force aircraft maintain a 24/7
    alert status in defense of the United States and its approaches,
    against both airborne and maritime threats.
        From a global perspective, we are continually bolstering Airman-to-
    Airman relationships with our allies and partners to build
    interoperable and complementary capabilities as well as to ensure
    access to foreign airspace and support infrastructure. We are using
    training, exercises, personnel exchanges, cooperative armaments
    development and foreign military sales to expand and cement these vital
    coalitions that are essential to prosecuting the GWOT and to our future
    Joint air operations.
        In addition, from local, regional and global perspectives, foreign
    internal defense is an indispensable component of successful
    counterinsurgency strategies. The Air Force is partnering with Special
    Operations Command to rapidly expand Air Force Foreign Internal Defense
    forces to bolster partner nations on the front lines of the GWOT.
        From direct support of Special Forces, to maritime interdiction, to
    Global Strike, the Air Force remains prepared to engage those who would
    threaten our friends, our interests, or our way of life.
                Emerging Threats
        The threats Airmen will encounter in the coming years are changing
    dramatically. Adversaries are developing and fielding new ground-based
    air defenses, improved sensor capabilities and advanced fighter
    aircraft. These capabilities will increasingly challenge our legacy
    aircraft, sensors and weapons systems.
        Advances in integrated air defense systems, to include advanced
    sensors, data processing and SAMs continue trends noted in the 1990s.
    SAM systems are incorporating faster, more accurate missiles, with
    multi-target capability, greater mobility and increased immunity to
    electronic jamming. Currently possessing ranges of over 100 nautical
    miles (NM), these anti-access weapons will likely achieve ranges of
    over 200 NM by the end of the decade. These advanced SAMs can and will
    compel non-stealthy platforms to standoff beyond useful sensor and
    weapons ranges. Proliferation of these long-range SAMs is on the rise,
    with projections for 2004-2007 indicating a twofold increase over the
    number of advanced SAM system exports during the mid to late 1990s.
        Another trend is the development and proliferation of upgrades to
    older, 1960/70's-era SAMs. At a fraction of the cost of a new advanced,
    long-range SAM, many African, Asian and Mid-East nations are looking to
    upgrade older SAMs to revitalize their aging air defense forces. By
    bringing in modern technologies, improved missile propellants and
    increased mobility, older SAM systems are becoming more reliable and
    more credible threats.
        Finally, the threat from Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS)
    continues to grow. Large, poorly secured stockpiles of these weapons
    increase the chances of highly capable MANPADS ending up in the hands
    of an insurgent or terrorist group.
        The threats from advanced fighter aircraft also continue to grow.
    Currently there exist 31 nations already fielding 2,500 or more
    airframes. Increased use of state-of-the-art radar jammers, avionics,
    weapons and reduced signature airframes/engines are becoming the norm
    in fighter design. Additionally, countries like India and China are now
    able to produce their own advanced fighters, thereby increasing the
    quantity and quality of adversary aircraft the Air Force may face in
    the future. By 2012, China will more than double its advanced fighter
    inventory to over 500 airframes, most with advanced precision-guided
    munitions and air-to-air weapons. Similarly, self-protection jamming
    suites are growing in complexity and proliferation, potentially eroding
    our ability to target adversary aircraft.
        The threat from the development, fielding and proliferation of
    standoff weapons such as long-range cruise missiles will also provide
    potential adversaries with offensive capabilities of ever-increasing
    accuracy and range which, when combined with their relatively small
    size, presents an increasing challenge to detection and tracking.
        Many nations are enhancing the utility of advanced fighters by
    pursuing, procuring and integrating support aircraft as force
    multipliers. They acquire aerial refueling tankers to extend the range
    of strike operations and increase on-station time for fighters.
    Furthermore, airborne early warning aircraft are extending the reach of
    many nations through datalink capabilities that provide control of
    fighter operations well beyond the reach of land-based radars. Several
    nations are also purchasing standoff jamming assets in both manned and
    unmanned platforms to attempt to deny our traditional sensor
    advantages. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) of all varieties are in
    high demand and are becoming increasingly available on today's market,
    providing low-cost, but highly effective reconnaissance capabilities.
    This situation represents a new and increasingly prolific and complex
    challenge on the battlefield.
        Additionally, the combination of improved C4ISR with improved
    ballistic and cruise missile capabilities will increasingly threaten
    regional and expeditionary Air Force basing. China, in particular, has
    a growing over-the-horizon intelligence, surveillance and
    reconnaissance (ISR) capability from a combination of ground, air and
    space-based systems. Coupled with its large and growing inventory of
    conventionally armed theater ballistic missiles, China's increasing
    capabilities and reach collectively present a serious potential to
    adversely impact allied and Joint air and space operations across the
    Asian theater.
        Worldwide advancements in the development, deployment and
    employment of foreign space and counterspace systems are challenges to
    U.S. Space Superiority. Adversaries, including terrorists, are more and
    more easily obtaining a number of increasingly sophisticated space
    services. Furthermore, they are developing the means to degrade U.S.
    space capabilities, freedom of action and access. The intent of U.S.
    adversaries combined with the capabilities of foreign space and
    counterspace systems will increasingly threaten U.S. military forces
    and interests worldwide.
                Threat of WMD Proliferation
        The threat of proliferation of WMD to countries with advanced
    military capabilities has changed dramatically since the end of the
    Cold War. India and Pakistan became overt nuclear powers in 1998,
    adding to their formidable conventional capabilities. North Korea
    claims and is assessed to have built nuclear weapons, while Iran is
    suspected of pursuing them; both countries face intense international
    pressure to halt their efforts.
        Less catastrophic, but of equal concern, are chemical and
    biological weapons (CBW). Chem-bio WMDs can range in sophistication
    from World War I-vintage gases or traditional agents like anthrax, to
    highly advanced ``fourth-generation'' chemical agents or genetically
    modified bacterial or viral weapons that challenge state-of-the-art
    defenses and countermeasures. It is much less expensive and more
    technologically feasible to produce CBW than it is to obtain nuclear
    weapons or fissile materials. Furthermore, CBW can be concealed very
    effectively and inexpensively, veiled under a veneer of legitimate
    civilian industry or ``dual-use'' activities.
        Future adversaries, deterred from challenging the United States
    openly, may seek to offset U.S. warfighting advantages by developing,
    using or threatening to use these weapons. As such, the acquisition of
    WMD capabilities by terrorists/non-state actors is a grave concern.
    Many groups have declared their desire to pursue such a goal, and
    evidence is growing they are attempting to obtain the necessary
    financial means, weapons knowledge and necessary materials.
    Air Force Contributions to OIF, OEF and ONE
                Air and Space Operations in OIF and OEF
        Over 26,000 Airmen are currently forward deployed in support of
    Combatant Commanders throughout the world. These Airmen continue to
    deliver key Air Force capabilities of precision engagement, rapid
    global mobility and information superiority to OEF and OIF missions.
        Pulling from 89,000 tailored deployment teams built around specific
    capabilities, the Air Force has flown the preponderance of Coalition
    sorties in support of OIF and OEF. In Iraq, the Air Force has flown
    over 188,000 sorties, while in Afghanistan, Airmen have flown over
    130,000. Overall, the Air Force has flown a total of over 318,000
    sorties, or approximately 78 percent of the total Coalition air effort.
    Counted among these sorties are missions ranging from airlift and
    aeromedical evacuation, to close air support (CAS) missions to protect
    ground troops as well as provide them with precise fire support and
    sensor capabilities.
        In 2005, Air Force fighters and bombers supporting OIF and OEF
    expended over 294 munitions (bombs), 90 percent of which were
    precision-guided, including the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).
    These trends represent a 10 percent increase over 2004 totals in the
    use of precision-guided munitions (PGMs). Our Airmen have also provided
    nearly all of the in-flight refueling for Joint and Coalition forces.
        Leading the way in reconnaissance and imagery, the Air Force is
    currently flying Predator UAV missions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
    This capability will grow from 8 to 12 total orbits in 2006 to meet
    increased demand. Predator aircraft are able to transmit live video
    pictures to ground-based targeting teams equipped with the Remote
    Operations Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) system. Linking precision
    engagement and persistent C4ISR capabilities to forces on the ground,
    ROVER has been used repeatedly to detect, target and destroy improvised
    explosive devices (IEDs) and disrupt insurgent activities across the
    region. Bolstering these capabilities are Tactical Airborne
    Reconnaissance System (TARS) equipped F-16s flown by Air National Guard
    units. In recent testing, TARS has demonstrated the ability to aid in
    the location and destruction of IEDs.
        Air Force operations in Iraq and Afghanistan also highlight the
    importance of space-based C4ISR capabilities to U.S. and Coalition
    forces. These capabilities have become integral to effective
    warfighting operations and include secure communications, global
    weather, persistent worldwide missile warning and intelligence
    gathering. Commanders continue to rely extensively on the all-weather
    precise position, navigation and timing capability provided by the Air
    Force's Global Positioning System (GPS) constellation, satellite
    communications (SATCOM) and timely observations of weather and enemy
    activity to conduct operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In strikes
    against time-sensitive targets, nearly 40 percent of all munitions used
    in OIF were GPS-guided, which made them unaffected by sand storms and
    inclement weather. Additionally, at the senior leadership level of
    warfighting, the Joint Force Air and Space Component Commander's duties
    as the Space Coordination Authority have become critical to successful
    Joint planning and execution of space capabilities for Joint Forces.
    Holding the ultimate high ground, Air Force space professionals keep a
    constant vigil over a global battle space--planning, acquiring,
    maintaining and operating the systems that sustain our Nation's
    advantages in space.
        Sister-services and U.S. government agencies continue to heavily
    rely on Air Force capabilities. Running the spectrum from logistics
    expertise to medical care, the Air Force is fully partnered with the
    Army and Marine Corps units running convoys throughout Iraq with more
    than 1,000 transportation, security forces and medical Airmen trained
    to support convoy missions.
        Moreover, Air Force capabilities are saving Soldiers' lives and
    simultaneously reducing our required footprint in Southwest Asia.
    Increased use of Air Force airlift capabilities--notably the
    unconventional yet highly effective use of workhorse C-17s as well as
    C-5 aircraft to increase our intra-theater airlift capabilities in
    Iraq--has dramatically reduced the need, number and frequency of ground
    convoys along the most dangerous roads and routes in Iraq. These
    capabilities and optimized theater airlift mission planning methods
    have also contributed to a planned reduction of the number C-130s
    required for OIF support.
        Additionally, Air Force support personnel are taking a more active
    role in the direct protection of personnel and resources. In early
    2005, Air Force Security Forces at Balad Air Base, Iraq, in conjunction
    with the Army, were assigned a sector outside the base to patrol and
    clear of insurgent operations. This aspect of the air base defense
    mission has not been seen since the Vietnam War, yet Task Force 1041
    was successful in reducing attacks on Balad Air Base by 95 percent.
        Airmen also worked to strengthen relationships, develop
    capabilities and enhance the self-reliance of Afghanistan, Iraq, and
    other regional GWOT partners. For example, Air Force Air Traffic
    Controllers helped return safety and commercial viability to Afghan
    airspace. At Ali Airbase, Iraq, a cadre of Air Force instructors taught
    Iraqi airmen how to fly and maintain their newly acquired C-130
    aircraft. In Kyrgyzstan, Air Force C-130s air-dropped U.S. Army and
    Kyrgyz National Guard troops over a drop zone in the capital of Bishkek
    during a joint training exercise. Additionally, United Arab Emirates
    (UAE) recently acquired American-made F-16 Block-60 aircraft. This
    acquisition provides them with cutting edge aviation technology and a
    capability complementary to the UAE's new Gulf Air Warfare Center,
    which has become a tremendously successful training venue for our
    regional and global Coalition partners.
        Finally, Air Force innovations in C2 technologies have allowed
    Airmen to seamlessly automate and integrate efforts of critical air
    assets. The systems baseline in use in the Falconer Air and Space
    Operations Center (AOC) at Al Udeid has improved automated support for
    the daily air tasking orders, while the capabilities of the Battle
    Control System-Mobile communications module reduces the number of
    Airmen needed at forward locations in Iraq, resulting in fewer Airmen
    exposed to hostile fire.
                Air and Space Operations in ONE
        While engaged in OEF and OIF, the Air Force simultaneously
    contributes to Operation NOBLE EAGLE--the defense of the homeland.
    Through a variety of efforts, the Air Force continues to guard the
    skies of our Nation from coast to coast. The Air Force's principal
    Homeland Defense mission is Air Defense and preserving the air
    sovereignty of the United States and its territories.
        Since 9/11, over 41,000 fighter, aerial refueling and airborne
    early warning sorties have been flown in defense of the United States,
    while over 2,000 air patrols have responded to actual incidents and
    suspicious flight operations. This is a true Total Force mission,
    leveraging the combined capabilities of the Air Force Reserve, Air
    National Guard and Regular Air Force components to provide seamlessly
    orchestrated C2 and refueling support for fighter aircraft operating
    from alert sites throughout the United States.
        The range, flexibility, persistence and precision inherent in U.S.
    air and space power provide Joint warfighters with a unique tool set
    for creating war-winning results with a relatively small footprint. Air
    and Space operations stand ready to continue providing these important
    resources to OIF, OEF and ONE, as well as exploring new ways to lead
    the way in the GWOT.
                Air and Space Power--An Essential Element of the Joint
                        Fight
        Innovation is a central theme in Air Force heritage. It is a
    strength the Air Force lends to the overall effort to transform Joint
    operations into a more seamless, integrated and interdependent team
    effort. U.S. military performance during ongoing operations in Iraq and
    Afghanistan demonstrates unprecedented Joint interdependence. We've
    gone from struggling with C2 and coordination of air and ground forces
    on the battlefields of Operation DESERT STORM to demonstrating a high
    degree of integration among Joint and Coalition forces engaged in OIF.
        Overall success of future interdependent Joint Force efforts will
    place greater demands on Air Force capabilities. As ground forces seek
    to increase their agility and speed, they will rely increasingly on air
    and space power to move them throughout the battlespace; provide the
    information needed to outmaneuver numerically superior or elusive
    adversaries; and deliver precise, rapid strikes across multiple,
    distributed operations areas. The future Joint Force concept of
    Seabasing, as yet another means to project power and support ground
    forces, further underscores the requirements for land-based air and
    space power. Clearly, the need for rapid mobility, persistent C4ISR and
    precision engagement will only increase in the future.
        Concurrently, as we reduce prepared, garrisoned overseas bases in
    the out-years, the Air Force will increasingly operate from
    expeditionary air bases. The Air Force, having transformed over the
    past fifteen years to an AEF construct and culture, continues to
    innovate and evolve with new expeditionary concepts. AEF contingency
    response groups (CRGs) are organized, trained and equipped to provide
    an initial ``Open the Base'' capability to Combatant Commanders. The
    theater CRG provides a rapid response team to assess operating location
    suitability and defines combat support capabilities needed to AEF
    operating locations. In addition, Basic Expeditionary Airfield
    Resources (BEAR) will provide the scalable capability necessary to open
    and operate any austere airbase across the spectrum of AEF contingency
    or humanitarian operations. BEAR will provide vital equipment,
    facilities and supplies necessary to beddown, support and operate AEF
    assets at expeditionary airbases with limited infrastructure and
    support facilities.
                Battlefield Airmen
        Airmen are increasingly engaged beyond the airbase and ``outside
    the wire,'' bringing ingenuity and technology to Joint warfighting on
    the ground by using advanced systems to designate targets, control
    aircraft, rescue personnel and gather vital meteorological data. The
    Air Force is optimizing this family of specialties, known as
    Battlefield Airmen. So far, we have identified program management,
    acquisition and sustainment synergies across the Combat Rescue, Combat
    Control, Terminal Attack Control and Special Operations Weather
    functional areas. Air Force personnel are an integral part of the
    battlespace, and we are continuously identifying and updating common
    training requirements for these Airmen.
        We are organizing Battlefield Airmen for maximum effectiveness in
    the modern battlespace. In addition, we will train Battlefield Airmen
    in the skills required to maximize airpower and standardize that
    training across those Battlefield Airmen. Finally, we must equip our
    Battlefield Airmen with improved, standardized equipment for missions
    in the forward and deep battlespace. This will expand the commander's
    ability to employ battlefield airpower professionals able to integrate
    unequaled accuracy, responsiveness, flexibility and persistence into
    air operations supporting Joint ground forces.
        From forward positions, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs),
    a subset of Battlefield Airmen, direct the action of combat aircraft
    engaged in CAS and other offensive air operations. Recently JTACs have
    become recognized across the Department of Defense (DOD) as fully
    qualified and authorized to perform terminal attack control in
    accordance with a Joint standard.
        In addition to night vision equipment, JTACs carry a hardened
    laptop computer and multi-channel radio. We've significantly reduced
    the weight these Battlefield Airmen must carry while simultaneously
    providing them with greater ability to perform critical tasks such as
    designate targets ranging up to several kilometers away. We are
    striving to further decrease the weight of their gear while increasing
    the capabilities and interoperability of their equipment with other
    air, space and ground assets. This combination of technology
    facilitates the direct transfer of information to combat aircraft,
    minimizing errors in data transfer. This equipment will increase
    situational awareness, assist in combat identification, maximize first-
    attack success, shorten the kill-chain and provide better support to
    ground forces.
                Innovative Uses of Technology
        Innovation--our Air Force heritage and strength--is critical to
    success in defeating enemies on the battlefield as well as in defending
    our homeland. Each day, Airmen across the world produce military
    effects for the Joint team through ingenuity or with advancements in
    technology.
        To meet U.S. Central Command's (CENTCOM's) urgent operational
    needs, the Air Force is accelerating the modification of our Sniper and
    LITENING Advanced Targeting Pods (ATPs) with video datalink
    transmitters to share information more rapidly. The high resolution
    images from our targeting pod TV and infrared video is generations
    better than the Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for
    Night (LANTIRN) pods used during previous conflicts, and they provide
    tactical information in greater volume and relevance than ever before.
        The Air Force is quickly adapting new tactics, techniques and
    procedures for integrating the ROVER III and ATPs into Non-Traditional
    Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (NTISR) missions. These
    include convoy escort, raid support and infrastructure protection
    missions in addition to traditional CAS missions. Equipped with air-
    ground weapons, our ATP-equipped aircraft have the flexibility to
    provide responsive firepower and unprecedented tactical reconnaissance,
    making our fighters and bombers more effective and versatile than ever.
        Furthermore, some ROVER IIIs were diverted to support Disaster
    Relief and Humanitarian Assistance in the aftermath of Hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita. Instead of flying ATPs on fighter or bomber aircraft,
    we located video transmitters on rooftops or attached them to
    helicopters to provide overhead video streams to the recovery teams
    equipped with ROVER III.
        Predator UAV systems continue to demonstrate the Air Force penchant
    for innovative application of technology for fighting the GWOT. Current
    operations allow Airmen in Nevada to pilot and control Predators
    operating in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operations.
    Increasing experience in these novel approaches to flight and mission
    control operations have led to revolutionary advances in the execution
    of military capability.
        Equipped with an electro-optical, infrared, and laser designator
    sensor, and armed with Hellfire missiles, Predator has not only
    shortened the sensor-to-shooter timeline--it has allowed the sensor to
    become the shooter. Since 1995 Predator has amassed over 120,000 total
    flying hours. From January through September of 2005, Predators logged
    more than 30,000 flight hours, over 80 percent of which were in direct
    support of combat operations. In August 2005, the Predator program flew
    4 aircraft controlled by a single pilot and ground control station,
    successfully demonstrating the Multiple Aircraft Control concept.
        Complementing the Predator's capabilities, the Global Hawk is a
    high altitude, long endurance, Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA). Through
    the innovative use of synthetic aperture radar as well as electro-
    optical and infrared sensors, Global Hawk provides the Joint warfighter
    persistent observation of targets through night, day and adverse
    weather. Global Hawk collects against spot targets and surveys large
    geographic areas with pinpoint accuracy, providing Combatant Commanders
    with the most current information about enemy location, resources and
    personnel. The Global Hawk program is delivering production systems to
    the warfighter now and is in constant demand by Combatant Commanders.
        Since its first flight in 1998, Global Hawk has flown over 8,000
    hours--including over 4,900 combat hours and over 230 combat missions
    with prototype systems deployed in support of GWOT. In OIF and OEF the
    prototype systems have produced over 57,000 images.
        The long-established ISR stalwart, the RC-135 RIVET JOINT continues
    to demonstrate its adaptability to a changing and evolving threat
    environment with the application of progressive technologies and
    upgrade programs.
        The RC-135 RIVET JOINT continues to field improvements in tactical
    SIGINT capabilities and platform performance, including re-engining and
    avionics modernization, to support the full spectrum of combat
    operations and national information needs. Additionally, RIVET JOINT
    has become the cornerstone for airborne net-centric development. RIVET
    JOINT plays a key role in the Network-Centric Collaborative Targeting
    Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration and serves as the platform of
    choice for implementation of new reachback technologies to enhance
    national and tactical integration. Adding yet another chapter to RIVET
    JOINT's continuous record of support to CENTCOM since 1990, the
    platform flew over 550 airborne reconnaissance missions in support of
    OEF and OIF.
                Aeromedical Evacuations
        As early as 1918, the military has used aircraft to move the
    wounded. The Air Force continued this proud tradition with the
    aeromedical evacuation of over 11,000 wounded personnel from
    Afghanistan and Iraq. The aeromedical evacuation system has transformed
    to ensure the Air Force can conduct rapid and precise operations in an
    expeditionary environment. The placement of aeromedical crews in
    forward locations continues the chain of survival that starts on the
    battlefield with self-aid and buddy care. The chain continues through
    Expeditionary Medical Support hospitals, to aeromedical in-flight care
    and finally to stateside medical centers within as little as 72 hours.
    Expeditionary aeromedical operations reduce the necessity and large
    footprint of theater medical assets and conserve valuable health care
    resources.
        The force mix of aeromedical evacuation crewmembers consists of 12
    percent Regular Air Force and 88 percent Air Reserve Component. This
    use of the Total Force was best demonstrated in the fall of 2005 during
    the swift aeromedical evacuation of over 3,800 sick and elderly people
    threatened by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
        As modern medicine evolves, the aeromedical system continues to
    adapt to meet future challenges. The Air Force continues to lean
    forward by looking at future threats such as biological warfare. We are
    leading the way in the development of a litter transportable patient
    isolation unit for the movement of contaminated patients. The
    aeromedical evacuation system demonstrates the Air Force's commitment
    to providing the best capabilities to the Joint team and our Coalition
    partners.
                Adaptive Airmen: Airmen Filling Non-traditional Roles
        Presently, Airmen are meeting the challenges of filling CENTCOM
    shortfalls in several critical roles which are non-traditional for
    Airmen, including Convoy Support, Detainee Operations, Protective
    Service details, Law and Order Detachments, Military Transition Teams
    and Provincial Reconstitution Teams.
        Detainee Operations and Convoy Support are our most heavily
    supported missions. Airmen attend training at Fort Lewis, WA or Fort
    Dix, NJ where they learn the fundamentals of detainee security,
    handling and interaction. At the conclusion of this training, Airmen
    move forward to a detainee facility in theater and receive additional
    on site training. Airmen provide Convoy Support in the form of heavy
    weapons teams supporting long haul convoy operations. These Airmen
    attend heavy weapons training followed by a convoy-training course.
    From that training platform, Airmen deploy forward to support theater
    operations.
        Air Force intelligence personnel are also fulfilling non-standard,
    unconventional roles as members of the Joint team. Air Force
    intelligence analysts attend the Enhanced Analyst and Interrogation
    Training Course at Fort Huachuca, AZ, where they learn to provide
    analytical support for interrogations. At the conclusion of this
    training, intelligence personnel deploy forward as part of the
    interrogator teams to Joint Interrogation Detention Centers in
    Southwest Asia.
        Law and Order Detachments provide vital Joint support missions
    throughout the Area of Operations. In this capacity, Air Force security
    forces personnel provide garrison law enforcement and security. Never
    routine, these missions occasionally support operations outside the
    confines of an installation.
        Military Transition Teams are comprised of specially trained
    personnel who work within the organizations of indigenous forces. They
    are responsible for training these forces to support and sustain
    themselves without the assistance of advisors. Provincial
    Reconstruction Teams are organizations that move into a different
    region within the Area of Operations and provide additional support,
    training and sustainment.
        With the exception of the Law and Order Detachments, none of these
    missions fall within the traditional skill mix of Air Force Security
    Forces. Additional training varies from one to five months, and
    deployments are normally longer than the standard 120-day deployment.
    We are understandably proud of the outstanding adaptability and
    professionalism with which our Airmen have filled the shortfalls in
    required skillsets on the Joint roster and accomplished these non-
    traditional yet critical missions on behalf of the Joint team.
    Other Operations
        In addition to our major contingencies and defense of the homeland,
    the Air Force remains engaged in numerous other operations around the
    world ranging from humanitarian relief and disaster response to
    maintaining our strategic nuclear forces and space assets. The presence
    of forward deployed forces is just the leading edge of a greater effort
    representing the totality of Air Force daily support to the Combatant
    Commanders.
                Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Operations
        In December 2004, nearly sixty years after the great Berlin Airlift
    of 1948-1949, the Air Force, while fully engaged in operations in
    Afghanistan and Iraq, once again answered the call for help in the wake
    of the tsunami that devastated Indonesia and South Asia--one of the
    worst natural disasters in history. Our Airmen responded immediately,
    and in the course of the first 47 days following the disaster led an
    allied effort that airlifted over 24 million pounds of relief supplies
    and over 8,000 people. The entire world witnessed the absolute best of
    America at work--agility, strength, resolve and compassion--just as it
    had witnessed nearly 60 years before.
        At home, the Air Force leveraged the agility, scalability and
    responsiveness inherent in our AEF structure and culture to speed
    support to civil authorities for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Hurricane
    Katrina devastated an entire region of the southern United States.
    While destruction of infrastructure stifled ground transportation,
    Airmen continued to reach flooded areas and bring relief. The Air Force
    flew over 5,000 sorties, airlifting more than 30,000 passengers and
    16,000 tons of cargo and accomplishing 5,500 search and rescue saves.
    Additionally, Air Force operations were a Total Force effort,
    incorporating Guard and Reserve capabilities into airlift and rescue
    operations as well as into the establishment of state-of-the-art
    medical facilities that treated over 17,000 patients.
        Air Force support during Hurricane Katrina and Rita recovery
    operations illustrated how persistent C4ISR can integrate with other
    agencies and proved critical to supporting U.S. Northern Command
    (NORTHCOM) and the Department of Homeland Security during civil support
    operations. Our airborne reconnaissance platforms, ranging from C-130s
    to U-2s, combined with military satellite communications (MILSATCOM)
    capabilities like the Global Broadcast Service (GBS), provided detailed
    imagery critical for decision makers and aided in directing relief
    efforts to the worst hit areas.
        Additionally, our civilian auxiliary, the Civil Air Patrol (CAP)
    provided capability to NORTHCOM, federal agencies and state and local
    governments during all phases of the hurricane rescue and relief
    efforts. The CAP provided nearly 2,000 hours of air and ground search
    and rescue, airborne reconnaissance and air transport of key personnel.
    The CAP leveraged the skills and vigilance of 60,000 non-paid
    volunteers in over 1,700 units to bolster the Nation's defense during
    these national crises.
        Future natural disasters and relief operations will likely be
    similar to those faced by the United States over the past year. Major
    populations requiring immense support are often isolated from the
    infrastructure that is their lifeline. Airpower provides the capability
    to overcome terrestrial obstacles and deliver aid directly to those in
    need. Always seeking new ways to innovate and improve, the Air Force
    will continue its ongoing transition to a force with unprecedented
    capability for civil support and Homeland Defense.
                Maintaining Our Nuclear Deterrent
        The DOD's new strategy of employing a capability-based approach vs.
    threat-based approach to planning led to the ongoing transformation of
    the existing triad of U.S. strategic nuclear forces, consisting of
    intercontinental and sea-launched ballistic missiles and bomber
    aircraft armed with cruise missiles and gravity weapons, into a New
    Triad composed of a diverse portfolio of systems. Elements of the New
    Triad will include nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, active
    and passive defenses, and robust research and development programs and
    industrial infrastructure for developing, building, and maintaining
    offensive and defensive weapon systems. Maintaining our traditional
    nuclear strategic forces is a key capability in an effective New Triad.
        National Security Presidential Directives outline the future force
    structure and requirements for U.S. nuclear forces. To meet National
    Military Strategy, Nuclear Posture Review and the Moscow Treaty
    requirements, near-term capability and sustainment improvements must be
    made to the legacy forces while development and procurement of follow-
    on systems proceed. These efforts will enable Air Force nuclear forces
    to continue to provide critical capabilities to policy makers. The
    nuclear forces will dissuade current and potential adversaries from
    pursuing policies or military initiatives that are unfavorable to our
    interests or those of our allies.
        Our Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and cruise missiles
    are poised to decisively defeat an adversary if deterrence fails. The
    cruise missile inventory, both Air Launched Cruise Missile and Advanced
    Cruise Missile, is being upgraded through a Service Life Extension
    Program (SLEP) to maintain a viable and flexible bomber-delivered
    weapon. Additionally, the Department of Energy is conducting a SLEP on
    the cruise missile warhead.
        The Air Force is committed to the New Triad and the associated
    nuclear C2 systems. To provide survivable strategic communications, the
    Air Force fielded and currently operates the Milstar SATCOM system. We
    are preparing to field the next generation Advanced EHF SATCOM system
    to replace it, as well as a single terminal to provide reliable,
    redundant and secure radio and satellite communication links with
    Minuteman ICBM forces. The Air Force recognizes the importance of the
    Nation's nuclear C2 resources and will continue to pursue the New Triad
    strategy for our strategic systems to ensure they are always ready to
    respond to the direction of our national leaders.
                Space Support for Operations
        The United States depends upon the Air Force to supply critical
    space capabilities to meet the needs of Joint operations worldwide, and
    also the needs of national missions across the instruments of
    diplomatic, informational, military and economic power. The National
    Security Strategy commits us to assuring allies, dissuading military
    competition, deterring threats and decisively defeating adversaries.
    The robust space capabilities our Airmen provide and maintain will
    continue to ensure our Nation's goals are met.
        As the DOD Executive Agent for Space, the Under Secretary of the
    Air Force released a coordinated National Protection Framework in 2005.
    This framework will aid senior decision makers by stating how space
    systems will be expected to operate during and following an intentional
    attack. The framework supports senior leaders in creating a Total Force
    solution across the national security space community. Air Force
    satellite communications will ensure our Nation's leaders can
    communicate globally through times of crisis while providing
    warfighters instant access to information. As evidenced by the
    hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, space environmental monitoring has
    become essential in saving lives and property as well as ensuring
    ground, sea and air forces prepare effectively for weather impacts.
        In support of worldwide military operations, the Air Force launched
    eight DOD and National satellite systems in 2005 from Air Force-managed
    and maintained launch ranges at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
    Florida and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. That number is
    expected to increase to 13 in 2006 as the Evolved Expendable Launch
    Vehicle (EELV) program takes over as the foundation for U.S. assured
    access to space.
        We have seen the first challenges to U.S. advantages gained from
    space assets. During OIF, the Iraqis employed GPS jammers in an attempt
    to reduce the precision of U.S. and allied strikes. We defeated this
    threat through a variety of methods including space system design,
    munitions design and tactics development to operate in a GPS-hostile
    environment. As technology develops and becomes available to more
    countries, organizations and individuals, new types of threats to space
    capabilities will emerge. Preparation now using non-materiel and
    materiel solutions to address the variety of potential realistic
    threats will lead to continued success in the battlespace.
        Comprehensive space situation awareness (SSA) and defensive and
    offensive counterspace capabilities are the foundational elements of
    our Space Superiority efforts. Enhanced ground-based and new space-
    based SSA assets will provide the necessary information to gain and
    maintain space superiority. With respect to defensive counterspace, we
    maintain a diversified ground-based C2 network, and we are developing
    increased protection for our satellites and space-based services to
    ensure the vital capabilities they provide are available when needed.
    We also recently fielded the Counter-Communications System to deny
    these same services to our adversaries. A well-balanced, multi-tiered
    architecture enables execution of a robust, effective space superiority
    strategy.
        Even as the first challenges to our Space Superiority have arisen,
    the Air Force is already working toward responses to the next set of
    potential challenges. First, the United States would like to deter
    potential adversaries from attacking or exploiting our space
    capabilities. To accomplish this objective, worldwide space operations
    must be monitored, assessed and understood. SSA involves those
    capabilities that allow the interagency and Joint communities to find,
    fix, track, characterize and assess space operations on orbit and
    inside the various Combatant Commanders' areas of responsibility. SSA
    capabilities will allow the Air Force or other members of the Joint
    community to target, if necessary, our adversaries' space capabilities.
    As part of the C2 process, we will evaluate options ranging from
    diplomatic to economic to military actions to determine the best
    flexible option to achieve the desired outcome. By understanding how
    friendly and hostile actors are leveraging these space capabilities in
    their operations, senior decision makers can deter potential
    adversaries while preventing unnecessary escalation and allowing for a
    range of response options to meet national objectives.
        The Air Force will protect space capabilities vital to the success
    of the Joint Force and the defense and prosperity of our great Nation.
    Some defensive measures will be integrated into new satellite designs.
    Other space systems, such as the Rapid Attack Identification Detection
    and Reporting System (RAIDRS) will be specifically designed to conduct
    defensive operations. We are also leaning forward on the development of
    new tactics, techniques and procedures to mitigate potential threats to
    Air Force space systems. Furthermore, experimentation has aided us
    immensely by facilitating risk reduction and providing interim
    defensive capabilities today--RAIDRS is an excellent example. The Air
    Force developed a prototype RAIDRS and demonstrated the capabilities of
    the system during Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment 2004 (JEFX 04).
    The inclusion of this prototype laid the groundwork for both tactics
    development and for design improvements for future development
    programs. As a result of JEFX 04, CENTCOM requested this prototype to
    support real-time Joint operations in theater. The results and lessons
    of this operational employment will certainly shape future capabilities
    by improving our understanding and providing further opportunities for
    innovation.
       air and space power for tomorrow--aiming for the unlimited horizon
    Priorities
                Developing and Caring for Our Airmen
        Force Shaping.--For the past 18 months, the Air Force has reduced
    our active duty end strength to Congressionally authorized levels
    taking action to relieve some of our most stressed career fields. The
    2004-2005 Force Shaping Program allowed officers and enlisted personnel
    to separate from active duty service earlier than they would otherwise
    have been eligible. In addition to voluntary force shaping measures,
    the Air Force significantly reduced enlisted accessions in 2005 to help
    meet our Congressional mandate.
        While the Air Force met our 2005 end strength requirement, we began
    2006 with a force imbalance: a shortage of enlisted personnel and an
    excess of officer personnel, principally among those officers
    commissioned from 2000 to 2004. This imbalance created several
    unacceptable operational and budgetary impacts. Consequently, the Air
    Force took several actions to ensure our force is correctly sized and
    shaped to meet future challenges and to reduce unprogrammed military
    pay costs. First, we increased our enlisted accession target for 2006
    to address the enlisted imbalance. Second, we continued to encourage
    qualified officers, especially those commissioned in 2000 and later, to
    consider voluntary options to accept service in the Air National Guard,
    Air Force Reserve, civil service, or as an inter-service transfer to
    the Army.
        Additionally, we are institutionalizing the force shaping authority
    granted in the 2005 National Defense Authorization Act to restructure
    our junior officer force. Only after exhausting all efforts to reduce
    officer end strength by voluntary means, the Air Force will convene a
    Force Shaping Board in 2006 to consider the performance and potential
    of all eligible officers commissioned in 2002 and 2003. This board will
    be held annually thereafter, as required, to properly shape and manage
    the officer corps to meet the emerging needs of the Air Force.
    Essentially, the Force Shaping Board will select officers for continued
    service in our Air Force. Current projections indicate that we need
    about 7,800 of these eligible officers (2002 and 2003 year groups) to
    continue on active duty. Approximately 1,900 officers will be subject
    to the force reduction. Exercising this authority is difficult, but our
    guiding principle is simple--we must manage our force to ensure the Air
    Force is properly sized, shaped and organized to meet the global
    challenges of today and tomorrow.
        Balancing the Total Force.--In addition to maintaining and shaping
    the active duty force, we must continue to focus on the balance of
    forces and specialties between Regular, Air National Guard and Reserve
    components--the Total Force. We are diligently examining the
    capabilities we need to provide to the warfighter and to operate and
    train at home. We continue to realign manpower to our most stressed
    areas and are watchful for any new areas that show signs of strain.
        As we look to the future in implementing Base Realignment and
    Closure (BRAC) and Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) decisions, we must
    ensure a seamless transition to new structures and missions while
    preserving the unique capabilities resident in our Regular Air Force,
    Air National Guard and Reserve communities. Examining functions for
    Competitive Sourcing opportunities or conversion to civilian
    performance will continue to be one of our many tools for striking the
    correct balance of missions across the Total Force.
        Force Development.--The Air Force's Force Development construct is
    a Total Force initiative that develops officers, enlisted and civilians
    from the Regular Air Force, the Air National Guard and the Air Force
    Reserve. The fundamental purpose of force development is to produce
    leaders at all levels with the right capabilities to meet the Air
    Force's operational needs by leveraging deliberate training, education
    and experience opportunities.
        The Air Force Personnel Center created a division dedicated to
    supporting corporate and career field development team needs.
    Development teams have now been incorporated into the officer
    assignment process and they now guide assignment of all officer career
    fields. Additionally, development teams recommend officers for special
    selection boards and developmental education opportunities.
        The Air Force is also deliberately developing our enlisted Airmen
    through a combined series of educational and training opportunities. We
    are exploring new and exciting avenues to expand our process beyond the
    current system in place today. Each tier of the enlisted force will see
    changes to enlisted development. Airmen (E-1 to E-4) will be introduced
    to the enlisted development plan, increasing their knowledge and
    solidifying future tactical leadership roles. The noncommissioned
    officer (NCO) tier will be encouraged and identified to explore career-
    broadening experiences and continuing with developmental education. Our
    Senior NCO tier will see the most dramatic changes as we explore the
    use of development teams in conjunction with assignment teams to give
    career vectoring and strategic level assignments. Institutionalizing
    the practice of development as a part of enlisted Air Force culture is
    paramount for supervisors, commanders and senior leaders.
        On the civilian side, the Air Force is making significant progress
    in civilian force development as we align policy, processes and systems
    to deliberately develop and manage our civilian workforce. We have
    identified and mapped over 97 percent of all Air Force civilian
    positions to career fields and have 15 Career Field Management Teams in
    place with three additional management teams forming this year.
    Additionally, we manage various civilian developmental opportunities
    and programs, with our career-broadening program providing several
    centrally funded positions, specifically tailored to provide career-
    broadening opportunities and professionally enriching experiences.
        Recruiting/Retention.--After intentionally reducing total
    accessions in 2005, the Air Force is working to get the right mix of
    officer and enlisted Airmen as we move to a leaner, more lethal and
    more agile force. We will align the respective ranks to get the right
    person, in the right job, at the right time to meet the Air Force
    mission requirements in support of the GWOT, the Joint Force and the
    Air Force's expeditionary posture.
        A key element for success is our ability to continue to offer
    bonuses and incentives where we have traditionally experienced
    shortfalls. Congressional support for these programs, along with
    increases in pay and benefits and quality-of-life initiatives, has
    greatly helped us retain the skilled Airmen we need to defend our
    Nation.
        Personnel Services Delivery.--To achieve the Secretary of Defense's
    objective to shift resources ``from bureaucracy to battlefield,'' we
    are overhauling Air Force personnel services. Our Personnel Services
    Delivery initiative dramatically modernizes the processes,
    organizations and technologies through which the Air Force supports our
    Airmen and their commanders.
        Our goal is to deliver higher-quality personnel services with
    greater access, speed, accuracy, reliability and efficiency. The Air
    Force has been able to program the resulting manpower savings to other
    compelling needs over the next six years. This initiative enhances our
    ability to acquire, train, educate, deliver, employ and empower Airmen
    with the needed skills, knowledge and experience to accomplish Air
    Force missions.
        National Security Personnel System (NSPS).--Our civilian workforce
    will undergo a significant transformation with implementation of the
    DOD NSPS. NSPS is a simplified and more flexible civilian personnel
    management system that will improve the way we hire, assign, compensate
    and reward our civilian employees. This modern and agile management
    system will be responsive to the national security environment,
    preserve employee protections and benefits, and maintain the core
    values of the civil service.
        NSPS design and development has been a broad-based, participative
    process to include employees, supervisors and managers, unions,
    employee advocacy groups and various public interest groups. We plan to
    implement these human resource and performance management provisions in
    three phases called ``spirals.'' The first spiral will include
    approximately 89,000 General Schedule and Acquisition Demonstration
    Project civilian employees in the Air Force. NSPS is the most
    comprehensive new federal personnel management system in more than 50
    years, and it's a key component in the DOD's achievement of a
    performance-based, results-oriented Total Force.
        Caring for Airmen.--Combat capability begins and ends with healthy,
    motivated, trained and equipped Airmen. We must remain committed to
    providing our entire Air Force team with world class programs,
    facilities and morale-enhancing activities. Our ``Fit to Fight''
    program ensures Airmen remain ready to execute our expeditionary
    mission at a moment's notice, and our food service operations further
    complement an Air Force healthy lifestyle.
        Through various investment strategies in both dormitories and
    military family housing, we are providing superior living spaces for
    our single Airmen and quality, affordable homes for our Airmen who
    support families. Our focus on providing quality childcare facilities
    and programs, on and off installations, enables our people to stay
    focused on the mission, confident that their children are receiving
    affordable, quality care. The Air Force is a family, and our clubs and
    recreation programs foster and strengthen those community bonds,
    promoting high morale and an esprit de corps vital to all our
    endeavors.
        Additionally, we are equally committed to ensuring that all Airmen
    in every mission area operate with infrastructure that is modern, safe
    and efficient, no matter what the mission entails--from Depot
    Recapitalization to the bed down of new weapon systems. Moreover, we
    must ensure Airmen worldwide have the world class training, tools and
    developmental opportunities that best posture them to perform with
    excellence. We also continually strive to provide opportunities and
    support services that further enable them to serve their Nation in a
    way that leaves them personally fulfilled, contributes to family
    health, and provides America with a more stable, retained and capable
    fighting force.
        Housing and Military Construction [MILCON].--One of the highlights
    in our emphasis on developing Airmen is our focus on housing
    investment. Through military construction and housing privatization, we
    are providing quality homes faster than ever before. Over the next two
    years, the Air Force will renovate or replace more than 49,000 homes
    through privatization. At the same time, we will renovate or replace an
    additional 10,000 homes through military construction.
        Investment in dormitories continues to accelerate in order to
    provide superior housing to our unaccompanied members--evidenced by
    nearly 8,600 dormitory rooms programmed for funding over the next six
    years. Approximately 75 percent of these initiatives will rectify
    currently inadequate dormitory conditions for permanent party members.
    Our new ``Dorms-4-Airmen'' standard is a concept designed to increase
    camaraderie, social interaction and accountability by providing four
    single occupancy bedroom/bathrooms with a common kitchen and living
    area in each module. Finally, the remaining dormitory program initiates
    modernization of inadequate ``pipeline'' dormitories--those dormitories
    that house young enlisted students during their initial technical
    training.
        The Air Force has taken risk in facility and MILCON funding in
    order to support modernization and transformation. However, we continue
    to fund our most critical requirements to include new mission projects,
    depot transformation, dormitories, fitness centers and child care
    centers. The Air Force is committed to improving its infrastructure
    investment by meeting the DOD's recapitalization goal through the
    Future Year's Defense Plan [FYDP].
        Sustain, Restore, And Modernize Our Infrastructure.--In order to
    maintain readiness, your Air Force remains committed to sustaining,
    restoring, and modernizing our infrastructure. Central to that
    commitment is our focus on both preserving our existing investment in
    facilities and infrastructure as well as optimizing our limited
    Restoration and Modernization (R&M) funding to fix critical facility
    deficiencies that impact our readiness. With the increased OPTEMPO of
    GWOT, these efforts are more important than ever.
        Our sustainment program maximizes the life of our infrastructure
    and preserves our existing investment. With proper sustainment, we will
    prevent our infrastructure from wearing out under the strain of
    increased operations and activities. In addition, Commanders in the
    field use O&M accounts to address facility requirements that directly
    impact mission capabilities.
        When facilities require restoration or modernization, we use a
    balanced program of O&M and MILCON funding to make them ``mission
    ready.'' Unfortunately, restoration and modernization requirements in
    past years have exceeded available O&M funding, forcing us to defer
    much-needed work. It is critical for us to steadily increase our R&M
    investment in order to halt the growth of this backlog. Simultaneously,
    it is important that we fully fund our sustainment efforts in order to
    maximize the life of our good infrastructure. The Air Force Total Force
    sustainment funding for fiscal year 2007 carefully balances
    infrastructure sustainment, R&M and MILCON programs to make the most
    effective use of available funding in support of the Air Force mission.
        We must avoid separating the Sustainment, Restoration and
    Modernization (SRM) account from the Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
    appropriation. In past years, all O&M was funded from the Defense
    Appropriation. Commanders are afforded the necessary flexibility to
    effectively manage budget shortfalls and unexpected requirements such
    as utility rate increases, natural disasters, infrastructure failures,
    or mission-driven requirements. Without legislation that would permit
    the movement of funds between all O&M accounts, Commanders would face
    serious challenges addressing these emergent requirements.
        Basic Allowance For Housing [BAH].--We must also avoid migration of
    BAH out of the Defense Appropriation Bill. Should emergent requirements
    create shortfalls during the year of execution, commanders will be
    unable to address them. Our hands will be tied. The Services will no
    longer have the ability to flexibly use the Military Personnel account.
    Furthermore, the Committee will have to create a new mechanism to
    ensure our Airmen are paid the housing allowance to which they are
    entitled.
        Common Airman Culture.--An Airman Culture manifests the totality of
    our commonly transmitted behaviors, patterns and beliefs. Our Air Force
    clearly recognizes the relationship between mission capabilities and
    our Air Force Core Values. Integrity, Excellence and Service, remain
    critical guideposts to every Airman's personal and professional flight
    path. Principles of dignity, self-worth, respect and diversity are
    firmly embedded elements of these values. Together, our Core Values are
    reflected in every Airman's pride, dedication to mission, subordination
    of their own needs for those of their wingman, and devotion to duty and
    this great Nation. In this past year, we have made significant strides
    in our efforts to promote, reinforce and inculcate our Core Values
    across the Air Force and throughout the Total Force team--including our
    Regular, Guard, Reserve, Civilian and Contractor teammates. We expect
    and accept no less from everyone on the Air Force team.
        Certain behaviors are absolutely incongruous with the Common Airman
    Culture and our Core Values. Among these is sexual assault. The Air
    Force has created the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program to
    ensure every Airman is provided the respect and dignity they deserve as
    their Nation's Air and Space warfighters. We have trained and fielded
    Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Victim Advocates to ensure
    every Airman has access to immediate assistance, should it be required.
    We are rewriting our education and training curricula at every level to
    ensure Airmen understand how these crimes occur, how they are often
    unwittingly facilitated by bystanders and third-party witnesses and how
    we can better take care of our people by preventing sexual assault
    crimes from occurring to them, their wingmen, friends and family
    members.
        Reflecting our belief that diversity adds strength to our
    organization, the Air Force has accepted the challenge to ``create a
    diverse and an inclusive Total Force which reflects and leverages the
    talents of the American people to maximize the Air Force's combat
    capabilities.'' We created The Office of Air Force Strategic Diversity
    Integration in the summer of 2005 to lead the Air Force's Diversity
    efforts. This office provides leadership guidance and strategic support
    for the understanding, furtherance and advantage of diversity within
    the ranks of the Air Force.
        Inherent in our Common Airman Culture is a belief in professional
    and personal dignity and a deep respect for individual religious
    beliefs. The protection of every Airman's freedom of religion, while
    also defending the Constitutional prohibition on official establishment
    of religion, is an area of significant emphasis. As Airmen, we take an
    oath to support and defend the Constitution. In that endeavor, we are
    striving to assist Air Force personnel, in the course of their official
    duties, to meet and balance their multiple Constitutional obligations
    and personal freedoms, regarding the free exercise of religion,
    avoidance of government establishment of religion, and defense of the
    Nation. This is an area of national debate. The balancing of these
    foundational American principles demands common sense, good judgment
    and respect for each Airman's right to hold to their own individual
    personal beliefs.
        We also recognize our Airmen must have the ability to interact with
    coalition partners and local communities at home and abroad, and the
    Air Force is transforming how it engages friends and partners in the
    expeditionary environment. Operations in this dynamic setting
    necessitate extensive international insight to work effectively with
    existing and emerging coalition partners in a wide variety of
    activities. Through the AF International Affairs Specialist program, we
    are developing leaders who are regional experts with foreign language
    proficiency. Our focus is on building a cadre of officers with the
    skills needed to foster effective relationships with global partners in
    support of the Combatant Commanders and U.S. global interests.
        Over the next year, the Air Force will continue to vigorously
    reinforce our Common Airmen Culture, our belief in professional and
    personal dignity and most importantly our enduring Core Values of
    Integrity First, Service Before Self and Excellence in All We Do.
        Training at Keesler AFB Following Hurricane Katrina.--In August
    2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast of the United States.
    Keesler Air Force Base (AFB), Mississippi lay in its direct path. The
    Air Force is attempting to rapidly reestablish Keesler's critical
    training missions. Of 56 enlisted initial skills training
    ``pipelines,'' 90 percent have already resumed operation. Additional
    pipelines have been temporarily reestablished at other locations.
    Significant challenges remain ahead, but training and developing our
    expeditionary Airmen remains one of our highest priorities. We take
    exceptional pride in the work our Airmen have done, and continue to do,
    in restoring Keesler AFB's training capability.
                Maintenance, Modernization and Recapitalization
        Our Airmen are the best in the world. However, they can only be as
    effective as the tools we give them. Within today's fiscal constraints,
    we must fight the GWOT and protect the homeland while transforming the
    force and maintaining an appropriate level of risk. The Air Force is
    committed to the modernization and recapitalization necessary to
    maintain the health of the force and bridge our current capabilities to
    systems and capabilities required in the future.
        Aircraft.--Our primary fighter modernization and recapitalization
    program is the F-22A Raptor. The F-22A is a 5th generation fighter
    aircraft that delivers Joint Air Dominance to counter persistent and
    emerging national security challenges. Given its vast improvements in
    every aspect--air-to-air, air-to-ground, all-aspect stealth, and an
    open, adaptable architecture--the F-22A is an insurance policy against
    future threats to Joint Air Dominance and represents the absolute best
    value for the American taxpayer. The F-22A is the only fighter
    currently produced that will defeat conceivable threats to Joint Air
    Dominance in anti-access environments over the next 20-30 years.
        The F-22A is flying today and is in full rate production. Its
    performance continues to meet or exceed key performance parameters and
    spiral modernization will enhance its air-to-air and air-to-ground
    target engagement capability.
        The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also a 5th generation fighter,
    will complement the tremendous capabilities of the F-22A. The JSF will
    recapitalize combat capabilities currently provided by the F-16 and A-
    10. Optimized for all-weather performance, JSF will specifically
    provide affordable precision engagement and global attack capabilities.
    In 2005, the JSF program continued to address design challenges to
    develop three aircraft variants and coordinate the requirements of the
    Air Force, Navy and Marines, along with our international partners.
        The C-17 continues to be a success story for the Joint warfighter,
    deploying troops and cargo to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as numerous
    locations around the world. The Air Force is on schedule for delivery
    of the next 40 aircraft through 2008--for a total of 180. During the
    past year, C-17s flew over 63,000 sorties, bringing the total number of
    OEF and OIF missions to over 109,000. Additionally, the C-17 flew over
    100 humanitarian and disaster relief missions following Hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita, as well as the October 2005 earthquake in Pakistan.
    The C-17, in concert with C-5 modernization programs, is critical to
    meeting our U.S. inter-theater airlift requirements.
        To meet continuing intra-theater airlift demands, we have a two-
    pronged approach to modernize our C-130s. First, but most problematic,
    we are striving to replace our oldest aircraft with new C-130Js.
    Second, the remaining C-130s are being standardized and modernized via
    the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program and center-wing box
    replacement programs. C-130s have been the workhorse for intra-theater
    airlift during numerous contingencies. C-130Js have supported GWOT and
    humanitarian operations since December 2004 and have proven to be a
    force enhancer as they deliver more cargo in a shorter time than older
    C-130s. C-130 modernization, coupled with the wing-box modification,
    reduces operation and sustainment costs and improves combat capability.
        The Air Force is developing the next generation combat search and
    rescue (CSAR) recovery vehicle, called CSAR-X. We are planning to
    replace the current and aging CSAR inventory of ``low-density, high-
    demand'' (LD/HD) HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters with 141 CSAR-X aircraft.
    The CSAR-X will address deficiencies of the current HH-60G by providing
    increased capabilities in speed, range, survivability, cabin size and
    high altitude hover operations. The CSAR-X will provide personnel
    recovery forces with a medium-lift vertical take-off and landing
    aircraft that is quickly deployable and capable of main base and
    austere location operations for worldwide recovery missions. The CSAR-X
    will be capable of operating day or night, during adverse weather
    conditions, and in all environments including Nuclear, Biological and
    Chemical conditions. On-board defensive capabilities will permit the
    CSAR-X to operate in an increased threat environment, and in-flight
    refueling capability will provide an airborne alert capability and
    extend its combat mission range.
        UAVs.--UAVs are demonstrating their combat value in the GWOT. The
    Air Force rapidly delivered operational UAV capabilities to the Joint
    warfighter and is continuing to mature and enhance those capabilities.
        Predator is transforming the way we fight, providing a persistent
    ISR, target acquisition and strike capability against critical time
    sensitive targets (TSTs) in direct response to warfighters' needs.
    Today, by controlling combat operations remotely from the United
    States, Predator provides a truly revolutionary leap in how we provide
    persistent military capability to the warfighter.
        The Air Force will continue to enhance Predator's ability to
    support the Joint warfighter. We are developing the ability to operate
    multiple aircraft by a single pilot, which will increase our overall
    combat effectiveness. We demonstrated this capability in August 2005.
    We are also developing and deploying the Predator B, a larger, more
    capable, more lethal variant. In its role as a ``hunter-killer,''
    Predator B will be capable of automatically finding, fixing, tracking
    and rapidly prosecuting critical emerging TSTs.
        Global Hawk is a high-altitude, long endurance RPA providing robust
    surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. Despite being a
    developmental prototype system, Global Hawk has flown over 4,900 combat
    hours. This year the Air Force moved beyond the proven capability of
    the Global Hawk prototypes by deploying two production aircraft to
    support GWOT operations.
        Airborne ISR.--E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
    (J-STARS) continues to be a high-demand asset. J-STARS aircraft provide
    wide theater surveillance of ground moving targets. Crews from the
    116th Air Control Wing at Robins AFB, Georgia, the first-ever ``blended
    wing'' of Regular Air Force, Air National Guard and Army, operate these
    aircraft. Modernizing these aircraft while maintaining the current high
    OPSTEMPO in combat theaters will be ongoing challenges. The recent
    installation of the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below module,
    the reduced vertical separation minima module, and the Airborne
    Battlefield Command and Control Center are some of the latest
    capability upgrades. The most urgent modernization needs for J-STARS
    include re-engining, radar upgrades, installation of the Traffic Alert
    Collision Avoidance System and integration of a self-protection suite.
        The E-10A program will highlight the advanced capabilities of the
    Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) sensor by
    demonstrating advanced cruise missile defense, interleaved ground
    tracking, and ground imaging capabilities in 2010 and 2011. A smaller
    variant of the MP-RTIP sensor, developed within the E-10A program, will
    be integrated into the Global Hawk in 2008 to begin developmental and
    operational testing. These demonstrations will advance critical sensor
    technology and provide vital warfighting capabilities.
        Space and Nuclear Forces.--Air Force modernization and
    recapitalization efforts also continue for space systems. The Air Force
    is modernizing critical capabilities across the spectrum of global
    strike, navigation, weather, communication, missile warning, launch,
    surveillance, counterspace and ground-based space systems.
        The Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) was
    originally designed in the late 1950s and deployed operationally in
    October 1962. Modernization programs have been crucial to this system
    originally designed to last just ten years. Service life extension
    programs are underway to ensure the Minuteman III remains mission
    capable through 2020. These programs, nine in all, will replace
    obsolete, failing and environmentally unsound materials while
    maintaining missile reliability, survivability, security and
    sustainability. These efforts are critical in sustaining the ICBM force
    until a follow-on system can be fielded.
        The Air Force is also addressing the need for a follow-on ICBM
    system. This system will address future warfighter needs, reduce
    ownership costs and continue to provide policy makers the critical
    capabilities provided by the ICBM. The effort to modernize the ICBM
    force is vital to the United States for the foreseeable future.
        Continued, unhindered access to space is vital to U.S. interests.
    As the Air Force continues programs to upgrade and modernize America's
    launch ranges, the EELV program will continue to provide the United
    States with assured access to space for both DOD and National space
    assets. The EELV program includes two launch vehicle designs--Delta-IV
    and Atlas-V--with each design comprising a family of scalable,
    tailorable launch vehicle variants.
        The TSAT program will employ Internet Protocol networks, on-board
    routing and high-bandwidth laser communications relays in space to
    dramatically increase warfighter communications connectivity. TSAT
    capability enables the realization and success of all DOD and Joint
    visions of future network-centric operations, such as the Army's
    Communications-on-the-Move (COTM) and Future Combat System (FCS)
    concepts and the Navy's Sea Power 21 vision and Fleet FORCEnet/
    FORCEview concepts.
        Global Positioning System (GPS) modernization and development of
    the next-generation GPS-III will enhance navigation capability and
    improve resistance to jamming.
        In partnership with NASA and the Department of Commerce, the
    National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
    (NPOESS) will accurately calculate surface winds over the oceans and
    gather meteorological data for our forces deployed overseas.
        The Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) will provide a
    transformational leap in capability over our aging Defense Support
    Program satellites. Complementing the space-based system are ground-
    based missile warning radars, being upgraded to support the missile
    defense mission.
        Another future transformational space-based ISR program is the
    Space Radar (SR) system. SR's day-night and all-weather capabilities
    will include Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery, High-Resolution
    Terrain Information (HRTI), Surface Moving Target Indication (SMTI),
    Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT) and Open Ocean Surveillance (OOS), and
    rapid revisit. It will support a broad range of missions for the Joint
    warfighter, the Intelligence Community, and domestic users. SR will be
    integrated with other surface, air and space ISR capabilities to
    improve overall collection persistence and architecture effectiveness.
        Modernization of our ground-based space systems will provide new
    capabilities to keep pace with the satellites they support and will
    continue to provide assured C2 for our satellites and space-based
    capabilities. This effort includes the modernization of ground-based
    radars, some of which are over 25 years old. Through programs like the
    Family of Advanced Beyond Line of Sight Terminals (FAB-T) and the
    Ground Multi-band Terminal, the Air Force is modernizing its ground-
    based space capabilities with satellite communications terminals that
    consolidate logistics support, provide increased satellite throughput
    and laser communications and ensure seamless command and control.
    Additionally, enhanced ground-based and new space-based SSA assets will
    provide the necessary information to gain and maintain Space
    Superiority.
        As part of the broader Space Control mission, the ground-based,
    theater-deployable Counter Communications System (CCS) has achieved
    Initial Operational Capability (IOC) and provides the Combatant
    Commander with a non-destructive, reversible capability to deny space-
    based communication services to our adversaries. Incremental upgrades
    to the CCS will continue to enhance our Offensive Counterspace
    capabilities. Overall counterspace enhancements also include ongoing
    RAIDRS development, which is a Defensive Counterspace system designed
    to assist in the protection of our space assets. RAIDRS will provide a
    capability to detect and geolocate satellite communications
    interference via fixed and deployable ground systems. Future
    developments will automate data access analysis and data fusion and
    provide decision support tools.
        Operational Infrastructure and Support Modernization (OSM).--
    Finally, the Air force is pursuing to modernize its operational
    infrastructure and the tools we use to manage operational support to
    our Airmen and Joint warfighters. The Air Force's ongoing Operational
    Support Modernization (OSM) program will improve operational support
    processes, consolidate personnel and financial service centers, and
    eliminate inefficiencies in the delivery of services, support and
    information to our Airmen and the Combatant Commanders. Realizing these
    economies, OSM will improve Air Force-wide enterprise efficiency and
    provide a resources shift from business and combat support systems,
    thereby returning resources to Air Force operations, equipment
    modernization and long-term investments.
        Air Force efforts also continue in the development of an effective,
    holistic asset management strategy for the restoration and
    modernization of operational infrastructure--facilities, utilities and
    natural resource assets--throughout their useful life cycles.
    Operational infrastructure is critical to the development and testing
    of new weapon systems, the training and development of our Airmen, and
    the conduct of Joint military exercises.
                Acquisition Reform
        The Air Force will meet the challenges of the 21st century,
    including asymmetric threats, through continued exploitation of our
    technological leadership and with our ability to respond quickly to the
    demands of a rapidly changing world. Effective leadership in research
    and development, procurement and sustainment of current and future
    weapons systems depends upon the integrated actions of professionals in
    the acquisition, as well as the requirements generation, resource and
    oversight processes. Everything we do in Air Force acquisition drives
    toward the goal of getting an operationally safe, suitable and
    effective product of best value to the warfighter in the least amount
    of time.
        Program cost and schedule growth have drawn widespread criticism
    and undermined confidence in the defense acquisition process. A recent
    Government Accounting Office (GAO) study of 26 DOD weapon systems
    reports average unit costs have grown by 50 percent and schedules have
    stretched an average of 20 percent, to nearly 15 years, despite
    numerous attempts at reform.
        In an effort to address these concerns, the Air Force formed the
    Acquisition Transformation Action Council in December 2004. This group
    is comprised of general officer and senior executive service
    representatives from the Air Force product centers, labs, air logistics
    centers and headquarters. The group continues to lead the
    transformation of Air Force acquisition from its present state into
    that of an Agile Acquisition Enterprise. The goals of Agile Acquisition
    include shortened acquisition process time and improved credibility
    with both internal and external stakeholders. Achieving these goals
    will be critical to making the delivery of war-winning capabilities
    faster, more efficient and more responsive.
        The Acquisition Transformation Action Council's short-term focus is
    on incremental improvements and eliminating non-value-added processes
    in areas such as conducting Acquisition Strategy Panels, meeting
    immediate warfighter needs and effectively incentivizing contractors. A
    more comprehensive strategic plan for acquisition transformation, due
    later this year, will detail not only where the near-term changes fit
    into the big picture of acquisition reform, but also the longer-term
    actions needed to achieve the goals of Agile Acquisition.
        The Air Force is also pursuing initiatives aimed at improving the
    Air Force's cost analysis capability. Among these initiatives are
    efforts to strengthen the Air Force Cost Analyst career field, improve
    the quality, quantity and utilization of program cost and technical
    data and estimating methods, and establish new policy requiring robust
    independent cost estimates for programs--earlier and more often. These
    improvements will promote realistic program cost and technical
    baselines as well as strengthen the Air Force's capacity to produce
    accurate, unbiased cost information for Air Force, DOD and
    Congressional decision-makers.
        The Air Force is on a bold, ambitious, yet necessary journey to
    provide our Commanders and decisions-makers with accurate, reliable
    real-time business and financial management information that is
    validated by a ``clean audit'' opinion. Basic building blocks for this
    effort include a revitalized emphasis on transparency in our business
    processes and an enterprise-wide financial management capability that
    is modern, comprehensive and responsive to the warfighter. Sound
    financial management and improved accountability are at the core of our
    financial management transformation.
        Initiatives in Air Force contracting include development and
    implementation of the Enterprise Architecture for Procurement,
    consolidation of Major Command (MAJCOM) Federal Acquisition Regulation
    Supplements, standardization of the strategic sourcing process and
    assessment of current contracting organizational alignments.
        The Air Force will continue to promote small business participation
    in our acquisitions. Partnering with small businesses--including
    Historically Underutilized Business Zones; Women Owned Small
    Businesses; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses; Small
    Disadvantaged Businesses; and Historically Black Colleges, Universities
    and Minority Institutions--helps ensure we maintain a strong defense
    industrial base and have the widest range of products and services
    available to support the Joint warfighter.
        The Air Force is also working with OSD to understand the demand on
    our acquisition personnel and to appropriately size our workforce. Our
    objective is to have the right mix of military and civil service
    acquisition professionals with the appropriate education, experience
    and training.
    Focus Areas
                Total Force Integration
        The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace stated,
    ``We must transform if we are to meet future challenges.'' One of the
    Air Force's more significant commitments to long-term transformation is
    the creation of the Total Force Integration Directorate. This new
    directorate is responsible for future force structure, emerging-mission
    beddown and development of Total Force organizational constructs.
    Working with our partners in the Air National Guard and Air Force
    Reserve, the Air Force is maximizing our overall Joint combat
    capability. Our efforts will enable the Air Force to meet the
    challenges of a shrinking budget, an aging aircraft inventory and new
    and emerging missions.
        The Air Force plans to shift investment from ``traditional'' combat
    forces, with single-mission capabilities, to multi-role forces by
    aggressively divesting itself of older systems. The result will be a
    force structure with expanded capability to combat conventional threats
    while continuing to wage the GWOT. Simply stated, the Air Force will
    become a smaller, yet more capable force through modernization and
    recapitalization of selected weapon systems with a commitment to
    networked and integrated Joint systems.
        Our Total Force initiatives will maximize efficiencies and enhance
    combat capability through innovative organizational constructs. We have
    developed an organizational construct based on the success of an
    associate model in use by the Regular Air Force and Air Force Reserve
    since 1968. Associate units are comprised of two or more components
    operationally integrated, but whose chains of command remain separate.
    This model capitalizes on inherent strengths of the Air Force's three
    components, ensuring partnership in virtually every facet of Air Force
    operations, while preserving each component's unique heraldry and
    history. Increased integration allows Regular Air Force personnel to
    capitalize on experience levels inherent in the Guard and Reserve,
    while building vital relationships necessary to sustain successful
    combat operations.
        Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve members will continue to
    support the Air Force's global commitments and conduct vital Homeland
    Defense and Security missions. Total Force initiatives will integrate
    Air Force components into missions critical to future warfighting: ISR,
    UAV operations and space operations. These missions are ideally suited
    for the Guard and Reserve since many provide direct support to the
    Joint warfighter from U.S. locations. Using this approach will improve
    our operational effectiveness, reduce our overseas footprint, reduce
    reliance on involuntary mobilization and provide more stability for our
    Airmen and their civilian employers.
        Ongoing Total Force transformation benefits from a robust, dynamic,
    cross-functional coordination process, involving the headquarters, all
    regular component MAJCOMs, the National Guard Bureau and Air Force
    Reserve Command.
        The Air Force continues to make significant progress on Total Force
    initiatives such as the Richmond-Langley F-22A integration in Virginia;
    community basing in Vermont; F-16 Integration at Hill AFB, Utah; new
    Predator missions in Texas, Arizona, New York, North Dakota, California
    and at the Air Force Warfare Center in Nevada; and C-17 associate units
    in Alaska and Hawaii. We are also working additional initiatives such
    as C-130 Active Associate units in Colorado and Wyoming; a C-5 Flight
    Training Unit in Texas; C-40 Integration in Illinois; and Centralized
    Intermediate Repair Facilities in Illinois, Connecticut, Louisiana,
    Utah, South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida.
        The Air Force, through its Total Force Integration Directorate, is
    continuing a broad effort to ensure that new Total Force concepts are
    embedded in our doctrine, policy directives, instructions and training.
    We are creating procedures to ensure resource and other decisions
    related to Total Force initiatives become routine parts of the planning
    and programming processes. The goal is clear, albeit ambitious: take
    greater advantage of Total Force elements and capabilities in the way
    the Air Force does business.
        The Air Force is transforming from a Cold War force posture to a
    structure that supports expeditionary warfare and leverages Total Force
    capabilities. More efficient use of our Regular Air Force, Air National
    Guard and Air Force Reserve assets increases our flexibility and
    capacity to be a more agile and lethal combat force and a more vigilant
    homeland defender.
                Science and Technology (S&T)
        The Air Force develops and exploits new technologies to meet a wide
    range of conventional and asymmetric threats. To achieve required
    future capabilities, we continue to support S&T investments for the
    major tasks the Air Force must accomplish to support the Combatant
    Commanders.
        Air Force S&T is focused on high payoff technologies that could
    provide current and future warfighting capabilities to address not only
    conventional threats, but also those threats encountered in the GWOT.
    The Air Force has embraced a new technology vision to guide our S&T
    Program--``Anticipate, Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, Assess . . .
    Anytime, Anywhere.'' We are integrating this vision into our annual
    planning activities to ensure we develop and transition relevant
    technology to the Joint warfighter.
        Air Force technological advantages and superior warfighting
    capabilities are the direct result of decades of Air Force investment
    in S&T. Similarly, today's investment in S&T will produce future
    warfighting capabilities as we adapt to continually changing threats.
    The Air Force continues to seek ways to create a significantly greater
    advantage over these threats. Investment in technologies such as
    nanotechnology could provide stronger and lighter air vehicle
    structures, while investment in hypersonic research could provide on-
    demand access to space and reduced time-to-target for conventional
    weapons. New information assurance technologies should allow real-time
    automatic detection and reaction to network attacks, enabling us to
    automatically isolate the attack and collect forensic evidence, all
    while continuing uninterrupted network operations. Research in sensor
    and information technologies should provide increased battlefield
    situational awareness, which will provide unprecedented insight and
    understanding of events in the battlespace. These are but a few
    examples of developing technologies that could lead to operational
    systems that are smaller, lighter, smarter, faster, stronger and more
    effective, affordable and maintainable than they are today.
        The Air Force Directed Energy (DE) Master Plan is on track and some
    DE applications are already being fielded, especially for defensive
    purposes. For example, the Large Aircraft Infrared Counter Measures has
    now been used extensively and successfully in OIF and OEF on C-17s.
    Also, the Airborne Laser program continues to move DE technology
    forward. The capabilities possible through DE hold the potential to
    profoundly transform how we fly, fight and defend ourselves.
        Impressive as our technological advances have been, maintaining an
    advantage relies, in part, on our commitment to future S&T investments.
    These investments also clearly highlight that air and space power is an
    asymmetric advantage for the Joint warfighter and the Nation.
                Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century [AFSO21]
        To meet the challenges of the road ahead, we have embarked on an
    Air Force-wide journey embracing Continuous Process Improvement, Lean
    Thinking and Six Sigma Quality. This major initiative is called AFSO21.
    Achieving excellence in all that we do requires us to institutionalize
    the precepts of AFSO21 throughout all of our operations, across the
    Total Force, and in our daily lives as Airmen. The Air Force is
    stepping up to the challenge and making the commitment necessary to
    achieve true process excellence. AFSO21 focuses on the identification
    and elimination of activities, actions and policies that do not
    contribute to the efficient and effective operation of the Air Force.
    We will seek out and discontinue any activity not ultimately
    contributing to creating military utility and mission capability.
    Continuous identification and systematic elimination of so-called
    ``non-value added'' activities are the keys to improving service,
    reducing costs and enriching the lives of our Airmen.
        We are seeking three outcomes from this approach. First, we want
    Airmen who are fully aware of the importance of their work and how it
    contributes to the mission; Airmen must look to improve what they do
    every day. We want Airmen to see their role in a fundamentally
    different way: by focusing on increasing value and eliminating waste.
    Second, we want to make the most of our existing budgets and free
    resources for future modernization by systematically identifying and
    eliminating the waste in our day-to-day processes. Finally, we want to
    enhance our ability to accomplish our mission and provide greater
    agility in response to rapidly changing demands.
        Institutionalizing this new way of thinking and operating will
    allow the Air Force to meet the enormous challenges of the next decade
    and ultimately to sustain and modernize the world's best air and space
    force.
                Fuel Conservation and Efficiency
        The Air Force is the largest renewable energy power purchaser in
    the United States and is set to continue making large buys that will
    not only greatly reduce reliance on petroleum-based fuels but, over
    time, will reduce utility costs.
        The Air Force is pursuing an aggressive energy conservation
    strategy and is committed to meeting and surpassing the energy goals
    mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and other overarching
    policies and mandates. We have been successful at reducing our energy
    consumption in accordance with past legislation and will continue to
    use a variety of programs aimed at reducing our use of petroleum-based
    fuels.
        Our overall ground fuel conservation efforts in accordance with
    mandates and guidance have yielded some notable reductions.
    Specifically, Air Force motor vehicle gas and diesel consumption has
    fallen significantly alongside a corresponding increase in Air Force
    use of alternative fuels. Air Force progress in these areas will be
    driven largely by commercial research and funding, since we do not
    substantially drive alternative fuels technology and infrastructure
    changes. The Air Force is partnering with the Army to develop and use a
    hybrid electric-diesel engine for the High Mobility Multi-purpose
    Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) with a planned delivery starting in 2008. Other
    alternative fuel-technology is still in the development stage.
        Michigan's Selfridge Air National Guard Base (ANGB) will become the
    demonstration center for the latest fuel-efficient and environmentally
    compliant technologies for use in Air Force support equipment to
    include Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resources (BEAR) and ground
    vehicle inventories. Tests at Selfridge ANGB, Michigan will look at
    fuel cell powered vehicles, hydrogen fuel infrastructure requirements
    and will ultimately provide models for future Air Force/DOD
    procurement.
        Our use of energy from renewable sources and construction and
    infrastructure improvement programs are designed to create cost
    effective energy efficiencies in new and existing facilities. In
    addition, our aggressive pursuit of on-base renewable power generation
    is rapidly increasing. We have bases where power is being produced from
    wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, and we have projects planned, in
    design or under construction to greatly expand this capability. Some of
    our bases are already using 100 percent renewable power from purchases
    and on-site production. With our combined purchase/production strategy,
    the Air Force is poised to surpass the renewable goals set by the
    Energy Policy Act.
        We realize our reliance on petroleum-based fuels must be curtailed
    and it will take a concerted and coordinated effort to meet the energy
    reduction needs of the Air Force. We use the tools available to improve
    infrastructure while we continue to strive to instill an energy
    conservation mindset in our Airmen.
                C4ISR
        Future transformational C4ISR capabilities will provide all-
    weather, persistent surveillance to the Joint warfighter and the
    Intelligence Community, and they will be tightly integrated with space,
    air and land assets to deliver even more precise and responsive
    situational awareness in support of national security objectives.
        The Air Force's biggest challenge with its world-class C4ISR
    systems remains the proper integration of these systems. The goal of
    our technology improvements is to integrate intelligence and operations
    capabilities. An integrated enterprise solution will enhance Joint,
    multi-agency and multi-national C4ISR collection and dissemination
    capabilities and will eliminate information seams among air, ground and
    space based assets. It will also expand information superiority and
    accelerate decision-making. This integration allows us to achieve
    decision dominance, leading to knowledge-enabled operations and
    supporting the development and execution of sovereign options using
    air, space and cyberspace capabilities.
        Knowledge-based operations are critical to closing the seams
    between Joint Forces. We anticipate a future in which each force
    element, no matter how small, is constantly collecting data and
    ``publishing'' it to a Joint warfighter network. Information will flow
    from every corner and element of the Joint Force, from ISR collectors
    to the warfighters. A key aspect of future C4ISR capabilities will
    involve replacing time-consuming human interfaces with machine-to-
    machine digital integration to ensure commanders have ready access to
    the information they need to execute their missions.
        The concepts of intelligence fusion and streamlined sensor-to-
    shooter processes imply a high level of system interoperability at many
    levels. Information technology increases the ability to send ISR
    information to any point on the globe in near-real time. The Air Force
    is adapting doctrine, tactics, techniques and procedures to manage this
    ever-changing growth in C4ISR capabilities.
        To maximize our C4ISR capabilities, the Air Force is eliminating
    organizational restrictions that inhibit the flow of information
    between these systems. Advances in information technology are removing
    historical limitations inherent in legacy systems, such as line-of-
    sight data links, incompatible C2 systems and manual collection-
    management processes. Our goal is to increasingly ``share'' rather than
    ``own'' information.
        Overcoming past shortfalls through improvements in the timeliness,
    accuracy and completeness of battlespace knowledge will also bring
    tactical-level information to command functions that previously had
    access to only the operational or strategic levels of war. The AOC is
    the focal point for operational C2 of air and space assets delivering
    combat effects to the warfighter. To make this capability more
    effective, we made it a weapon system--the Air Force provides manpower
    and training as it does for every other weapons system--standardized,
    certified and lethal. We injected the technology necessary to increase
    machine-to-machine connectivity. Through both technical and procedural
    improvements, we have increased the system's capacity for information
    fusion and accelerated the decision-to-shooter loop. All five of our
    full-function AOC weapon systems (Falconers) should be fully
    operational in 2006.
        In support of DOD and the Joint community's broader efforts to
    adopt and transition to network centric warfare, the Air Force is
    aggressively integrating existing C4ISR platforms across a distributed
    processing environment. The Network Centric Collaborative Targeting
    Program (NCCTP) will initially integrate capabilities that include
    airborne C2, ground surveillance, signals intelligence and operational
    C2 at the AOC. The Air Force will expand NCCTP into a broader Airborne
    Networking capability that will support the full and expanding range of
    future Joint air and space operations.
        The Air Force is actively pursuing the extension of Global
    Information Grid (GIG) networked capabilities out to the extreme edge
    of tactical air operations. Programs like Family of Advanced Beyond-
    Line-of-Sight Terminals (FAB-T), the Joint Tactical Radio System
    (JTRS), Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT), the Battlefield
    Airborne Communications Node (BACN), and, eventually, the TSAT
    constellation will provide rich connectivity and interoperability for
    Joint air operations as well as tactical users and warfighters.
        The Air Force is working closely with the other Services and
    Agencies to define new doctrine and organizational structures to
    optimize Joint warfighting operations. Consequently, we are developing
    the necessary technical capabilities, refined processes and trained
    personnel to achieve desired effects.
                Warfighting Headquarters (WFHQs)
        The Air Force is transforming our C2 structure by establishing new
    WFHQs. These will be positioned globally, replacing our old Cold War
    structures and providing the Joint Force Commander (JFC) with the most
    effective means to lead air and space forces in support of National
    Security objectives. These forces will be organized and resourced to
    plan and deliver air and space power in support of Combatant
    Commanders, enabling a seamless transition from peacetime to wartime
    operations. WFHQs will maximize usage of C4ISR technology and reachback
    to minimize required manpower. The WFHQs are also designed to act as
    the Combined/Joint Force Air Component Commander Headquarters, or Joint
    Task Force Headquarters.
                Joint Warfighting Space (JWS)
        The JWS concept is an outgrowth of Air Force efforts to develop
    Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) capabilities. JWS and ORS will
    enable rapid deployment and employment of communication, ISR and other
    vital space capabilities and services. JWS will emphasize agility,
    decisiveness and integration to provide dedicated, responsive space and
    near-space capabilities and effects to the JFC.
        In 2005, the Air Force successfully conducted the first JWS
    demonstration. By capitalizing on an existing commercial communications
    capability using free-floating platforms, the Air Force was able to
    extend line-of-sight communications for ground forces from 5-7 miles to
    over 300 miles. This demonstration was the initial step in exploiting
    existing off-the-shelf technologies in a long loiter environment.
        In 2006, the Air Force will team with our sister Services to
    conduct the first in a series of small (1,000 pounds or less) satellite
    experiments. These demonstrations are designed to enhance and
    incorporate space capabilities in Joint training and exercises,
    increase space integration and allow the Joint Force to take advantage
    of the many synergies multi-service space professionals provide.
    Lessons learned from these activities have the potential to further
    evolve and improve space doctrine and help the Joint community in
    developing innovative space-derived effects.
        JWS and ORS demonstrations will continue to explore ways of
    achieving new, more effective ways of providing space capabilities to
    the Joint warfighter. As technologies mature, JWS will bring the Joint
    Force more persistent, responsive and dedicated capabilities.
                Long Range Strike
        To further refine its rapid strike capabilities, the Air Force is
    transitioning its Long-Range Strike strategy to focus on effects
    instead of platforms. We view long-range strike as the capability to
    achieve desired effects rapidly and persistently on any target set in
    any operational environment.
        Our forces must be simultaneously responsive to multiple Combatant
    Commanders and be able to strike any point on the planet. Today, we
    provide deep strike capabilities through a variety of platforms and
    weapons. Future capabilities must continue to enhance the effectiveness
    of the system. Responsive capabilities will combine speed, stealth and
    payload to strike hardened, deeply buried, or mobile targets, deep in
    enemy territory, in adverse weather and with survivable persistence.
                Improving CAS
        Detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement
    of supported Joint Forces is the trademark of CAS. In the past,
    aircrews and ground forces shared information through lengthy voice
    descriptions. When providing CAS or time-critical-targeting, this
    dialogue often took several minutes and occasionally resulted in missed
    opportunities. To increase integration and lethality, the Air Force has
    developed new equipment and training to increase situational awareness
    in CAS operations. We also continue to sustain and modernize the A-10,
    the only Air Force aircraft dedicated to the CAS mission.
        With video downlinks, Battlefield Airmen can share time-sensitive
    information instantaneously and complete target coordination in mere
    seconds. Most JTACs are already equipped with ROVER III receivers to
    display video feeds from most UAVs and ATPs.
        In 2006, the Air Force will begin operational fielding of the
    Precision Engagement modification that integrates ATPs and data links
    and enhances employment of GPS-aided munitions. This modification will
    greatly enhance the pilot's situational awareness and improve both the
    responsiveness and accuracy of A-10 targeting. This will increase the
    A-10's lethality while reducing the probability of fratricide
    incidents. The Air Force will also improve the sustainability of its A-
    10s by continuing a SLEP that doubles the flight hour life of the A-10,
    helping to ensure the A-10 can remain in service for as long as the
    warfighter requires.
        In 2006, the A-10 Propulsion Upgrade Program will enter the system
    design and demonstration phase. This program will upgrade the A-10's
    current TF34-100A engines to provide approximately 30 percent more
    thrust. This will help overcome some limitations that the A-10 faces
    when operating from expeditionary airfields at high field elevations
    and temperatures. It will also improve the A-10 performance at medium
    altitudes and increase its weapon load, thus improving survivability
    and more fully leveraging the capabilities of the Precision Engagement
    modification and ATPs.
                Special Operations Forces (SOF)
        Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) offers Combatant
    Commanders specialized airpower and ground forces to conduct and
    support special operations and personnel recovery missions. These
    forces offer a unique combination of capabilities and personnel that
    the United States can call upon for the GWOT, Homeland Defense and
    disaster response missions.
        To meet operational requirements, we will add four AC-130U Gunships
    to the force structure in 2006, followed by ten MC-130H Combat Talon
    IIs by 2010. The first CV-22 Osprey combat unit anticipates IOC in
    2009. The Osprey will add a long-range, self-deployable, vertical lift
    mobility aircraft to sustain SOF in remote environments.
        We will support expanding our SOF Combat Aviation Advisory forces
    so they can assess, train, advise, assist and integrate more nations'
    Air Forces into the GWOT and other combined operations and
    contingencies. We have begun the CSAR-X program in an effort to provide
    a fast, long-range, all-weather aircraft to achieve IOC in 2010 and
    replace the HH-60 CSAR aircraft.
        The Air Force is also developing the Persistent Surface Attack
    System of Systems as the follow-on to the current AC-130 Gunship. This
    gunship follow-on will provide responsive, survivable, persistent and
    precise fire support in the low-threat to selected high-threat
    engagements in the 2015 timeframe.
                BRAC
        BRAC 2005 will transform the Air Force for the next 20 years to
    meet new challenges as a Total Force. The BRAC results improve Air
    Force warfighting effectiveness, realign Cold War era infrastructure to
    meet future defense strategy, maximize operational capability by
    eliminating excess physical infrastructure, and capitalize on
    opportunities for Joint teaming with our sister Services. We will
    continue the excellent record established in prior BRAC rounds by
    closing bases as quickly as possible so savings are realized and
    properties expeditiously turned over for viable reuse, in concert with
    community plans for development and economic revitalization.
                          summary--heritage to horizon
        We have received a proud heritage forged through the ingenuity,
    courage and strength of the Airmen who preceded us. Our duty today is
    to deliver their Air Force to the limitless horizon ahead of us. The
    mission of the Air Force remains to fly, fight and win whether we are
    delivering lethal effects against insurgents in Iraq, protecting the
    skies of the United States against terrorist attacks, providing a
    Global Positioning System that is essential to our modern military and
    the global economy, or providing relief to victims of natural disasters
    both at home and abroad.
        The Air Force of today and of the future will strengthen the entire
    Joint and Coalition team. Dominance of air, space and cyberspace paves
    the way to overall success. In keeping with the current emphasis on
    innovation and transformation, our future Air Force will be a more
    capable yet smaller force. As such, the future Air Force will increase
    the capability and flexibility of the Joint Force and, subsequently,
    will increase the depth and breadth of options available to the
    President and the Secretary of Defense. These military options will be
    crucial to the defense of the Nation as the United States continues to
    wage the GWOT while transforming and strengthening the Joint Force for
    any future contingency.
        The Air Force offers an unparalleled set of combat capabilities to
    directly influence any Joint, Coalition or interagency operation, as
    well as the enabling capabilities to improve Joint warfighting in
    conjunction with our partners on the ground, on or under the sea and
    through the air, space and cyberspace. Recognizing that no Service, or
    even DOD, can achieve success by itself, the Air Force has focused on
    increasing the integration and effectiveness of the Joint Force and
    interagency team.
        To achieve new levels of integration and effectiveness, the Air
    Force will take advantage of our Nation's long-held command of the
    global commons--air, space, sea and cyberspace. The Air Force will
    extend its current air and space power advantage. As part of the Joint
    Force, the Air Force is positioned to leverage its persistent C4ISR,
    global mobility and rapid strike capabilities to help win the GWOT,
    strengthen Joint warfighting capabilities and transform the Joint
    Force--while maintaining good stewardship of public resources.
        The Air Force faces the broadest set of mission requirements across
    the entire spectrum of warfare. We will bolster our Nation's ability to
    respond swiftly, flexibly and decisively to asymmetric, irregular and
    emerging threats. We have embarked on AFSO21 as a means to best
    allocate our resources to meet this increasing set of challenges.
        To accomplish this requires continued focused investment in our
    people, science and technology and the maintenance, sustainment,
    modernization and recapitalization, and, where it makes sense,
    retirement of our aging aircraft and weapon systems.
        We are America's Airmen. Our heritage is innovation. Our culture is
    Expeditionary. Our attitude is Joint. Our mission is clear. As threats
    change and America's interests evolve, we will continue to adapt,
    evolve and remain the world's premier air and space force. Together
    with our fellow Services, we stand resolute, committed to defending the
    United States and defeating our enemies.

        Senator Stevens. General Moseley, do you have a statement?
        General Moseley. Mr. Chairman, thank you, sir. If you would
    allow me to put my statement in the record, I would like to
    take my time and introduce four American heroes and great
    airmen to you, sir, and the distinguished members of the
    subcommittee.
        When I call their name, if they would please stand up.
        Let me start with Senior Airman Polly-Jan Bobseine. She's
    had three deployments to Iraq so far. She's due to rotate back
    in June. Senator Burns, this is one of these airmen that are on
    the ground in close combat alongside our joint partners, the
    Coast Guard, Navy, Marines, and Army. She's a fire team member
    with the 820th Security Forces Group. She's participated in
    numerous offensive operations and offensive ground operations
    in Iraq, to include 100 combat patrols and 45 offensive
    missions. She's participated in 30 ambushes and five direct
    action missions against Iraqi insurgents herself. She's earned
    U.S. Jump Wings and the Army's Big Red One has given her a
    combat patch for sustained combat operations alongside the 1st
    Infantry Division. Again, she's going back in June.
        Our second American hero is Technical Sergeant Brad Reilly.
    He goes back in July. He's had four deployments. He's wearing a
    Silver Star and a Purple Heart that he earned while assigned to
    forces in Afghanistan. This particular mission, he was part of
    a quick-reaction force that was moving to reinforce an ambushed
    Afghan security force. Upon their arrival, the helicopter
    received heavy fire. His detachment, upon landing, overran the
    enemy position and then began to receive hostile fire from
    three different directions. Technical Sergeant Reilly was
    wounded in this action, as was another member of his team,
    Master Sergeant Cooper, who was critically wounded in the upper
    thigh. Technical Sergeant Reilly provided life-saving skills to
    save Master Sergeant Cooper's life, controlled close air
    support fires, provided continual suppressive fire himself with
    close combat against Afghan hostiles for over 2 hours, while
    wounded. Sir, again, he goes back in July. This will be his
    fifth deployment when he goes back.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ann Konnath, she is an expert in Air
    Force space operations. She commands our Weapons School
    squadron at Nellis Air Force Base. She is the expert teaching
    experts about space operations. She is a distinguished Reserve
    Officer Training Corps (ROTC) graduate. She's a graduate of the
    Air Force Weapons School. She is an expert orbital analyst with
    operations in Cheyenne Mountain. She has, herself, operated
    several space control systems. She's been a space weapons
    officer both at 8th Air Force in the Operations Center and in
    U.S. Pacific Command, alongside our other joint partners. She
    is the expert in doing this business of space operations.
        Finally, Lieutenant Colonel Trey Turner. He's had three
    combat deployments. He commands the 17th Reconnaissance
    Squadron, which is our--one of our Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
    Squadrons. And, Mr. Chairman, I think you had a chance to visit
    with them last week out at Nellis Air Force Base. He was a
    naval officer in a previous life, Top Gun graduate of the Navy
    Weapons School in 1992, and an interservice transfer to the Air
    Force in 2003. He's a command pilot with over 4,000 hours in
    the Predator, the F-18, the F-14, the A-4, and has 376 carrier
    landings. He's been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan three
    times. And he is involved in our reachback operations, flying
    combat missions now out of Indian Springs and out of Nellis,
    over Afghanistan and Iraq. He is the leading expert in unmanned
    aerial vehicle (UAV) combat operations in the U.S. Central
    Command Area of Operations. Last night, he delivered ordnance
    against hostiles in Afghanistan.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time and for allowing me to
    be a proud chief and bring four great Americans and four great
    airmen before this subcommittee, and allowing me to introduce
    them to you.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, General. I
    really did enjoy the visit to Nellis. I wish the whole
    subcommittee had been along, because this--the unfolding of the
    manpower and timing requirements of unmanned aircraft, and how
    they're being utilized in combat--in a 24 hour/7 day/365 days a
    year basis is--really, a very interesting scenario to learn
    about and to witness. So, I thank you very much for the visit
    there. And we're delighted to have these young heroes join us
    here today. There's no question about that.
        General Moseley. Thank you, sir. You can see why I'm a
    proud chief, with folks like this in America's Air Force.
        Senator Stevens. They are the coming greatest generation,
    no question about it.
        We have been considering--now if there's no objection,
    we'll go on a 7-minute basis for questions now. I assume there
    will be other members to join us here. We are in session,
    gentlemen, and the problem is, we expect votes within about 40
    minutes.
        We've been told there's an Air Force structure change
    that'll change command relationships. The net result would be
    to eliminate the three-star commands in the various areas now.
    Is this a definite plan now, Mr. Secretary? Is it underway?
        Mr. Wynne. What I would say, sir, is that we are intending
    to reduce our force by about 40,000 people--full-time
    equivalents--over the next 6 years, fiscal year 2006 to fiscal
    year 2011. As a part of that, General Moseley has determined
    that the Active Air Force should not only lead from, but should
    lead from the top, and has determined that he can excise
    approximately 30 general officer slots, of which some of those
    are, in fact, three star slots. We are actually organizing more
    around warfighting headquarters to support combatant commanders
    and relieving ourselves of some of the administrative
    headquarters that these slots would occupy.
        We think that this will actually streamline the Air Force
    from top to bottom. And I have congratulated him on this
    action, because it would make sure that we do not have, if you
    will, all of the 40,000 coming from the bottom of the pyramid,
    but from along the sides of the pyramid.
        Senator Stevens. Well, let me tell you a little history,
    and then--I'll probably take too much of my time right now,
    but--when I was a very young Senator, the Senator in charge of
    this subcommittee, Senator Stennis, and I had some
    conversations with the then-President, President Nixon.
    President Nixon decided to eliminate some of the command
    structures. And one of them was the Alaska Command. I was
    visited by a whole series of former--retired officers, former
    chiefs, who said, you know, ``You must remember World War II.''
    When World War II happened, there was only a one-star general
    in the whole of Alaska, and people came up--had never served in
    Alaska, and there were a few snafus, because the people didn't
    understand the distance or the climate or the terrain, the
    whole problem. So, we negotiated an agreement with the
    President that the Alaska Command would be disestablished, but
    there would always be a three star in that area who would be in
    charge of the task force. There was presidential order
    somewhere that says immediately upon such an emergency, there
    is reestablished a task force for Alaska, and that person is in
    charge.
        Now, that three star has been there since that time. If I
    understand what you're doing, you're going to take it away, and
    take the one away from Hawaii, too. If that happens, you're
    going to have war up here.
        Mr. Wynne. I would only ask for General Moseley's sage
    words on that, because I've left the organization of the
    combatant commands to his wisdom.
        Senator Stevens. General Moseley.
        General Moseley. Senator, there is no intent in this to
    take down 11th Air Force of the lieutenant general in Alaska or
    the lieutenant general on the peninsula. And we've stood up a
    warfighting headquarters in Hawaii, with a lieutenant general
    there, to be the combined force air component commander for
    U.S. Pacific Command. So, we'll have three numbered Air Force
    equivalents and three lieutenant generals to fight those
    fights. And the Alaska commander, as you know, is also the
    North American Air Defense guy.
        Senator Stevens. Right.
        General Moseley. He is triple hatted as Alaska Command
    under U.S. Pacific Command, and in his North American Air
    Defense hat, under Admiral Tim Keating, at U.S. Northern
    Command. And he's the 11th Air Force commander. So, he is that
    task force commander that you are talking about.
        Senator Stevens. That will not be changed, will it?
        General Moseley. No, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Well, I thank you for that.
        It now appears that--and we discussed this, before--the F-
    22 is to be incrementally funded. I think the subcommittee here
    should understand, that is financing in increments rather than
    on a total basis. Now, in general, the subcommittees have
    opposed incremental funding for long-term procurement programs
    such as fighters, bombers, ships. And it is--the changes, I
    think, require an explanation on the record. I've got to tell
    the subcommittee, I don't oppose the proposal, but I think it's
    going to be hard to sell. So I'd like you to explain it to the
    subcommittee, if you would.
        Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir. Thank you for that opportunity.
        We successfully, if you will, negotiated with the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense under the theme that we needed to make
    sure that we had a hot fighter line as an option for the
    President until we got--especially for a fifth generation
    fighter--until we got another fifth generation forward fighter.
    The F-22 is that fifth generation fighter. It was started in
    the 1980s and finalized as a quest of stealth, speed, and
    precision, all wrapped up in one airplane. The successor
    airplane, the next fifth generation fighter airplane is the F-
    35, which is currently under development. We felt that the 2-
    year extension to the program would, in fact, benefit America,
    giving us that option to make sure we had a hot fighter line.
        This came wrapped in a package that decreased the quantity
    that we had asked for, from 27 airplanes to 20, each year, but
    it did extend the program by 2 years. It did add four airplanes
    to it. But it came wrapped, also, in a package of funding that,
    in fact, bought piece parts in the first advanced procurement,
    and then subsystems in the second advanced procurement, which
    to, I think, budgeting purists, looks a lot like incremental
    funding. It can be wrapped in several packages, but it
    certainly is peculiar, relative to the program.
        The program is mature enough to do a multiyear. We
    absolutely need to have a multiyear in order to cope with the
    increased costs due to the lower volume. The question, to my
    basis, is whether or not we have hedged it full enough, if you
    will, to allow the F-35 to truly mature.
        This leads me to a dilemma, the dilemma that you, the
    subcommittee here, can help me resolve. One is, I either need a
    waiver for the program against this relatively peculiar
    approach to funding the aircraft, so that when I get--and I
    want to add, if you will, another year, if that is deemed
    prudent--I don't have, essentially, a double obligation in an
    out-year, in fiscal year 2010. Either that, or I humbly ask the
    subcommittee to work with us to fix, if you will, the fiscal
    year 2007 submittal, so we can offset what is now a shortfall
    in funding and represented by the zero that you see in fiscal
    year 2007, which essentially defers, on a one-time basis, the
    obligation flow.
        So, those are the two alternatives that I would ask you to
    help me with.
        Senator Stevens. Well, that will be a difficult thing to
    resolve. And I think we're going to have to have a subcommittee
    session on that so our members will understand it.
        I would prefer the latter result, but I'm not sure we can
    do it, budgetwise. If we can't, then I think we'll have to do
    it in the basic bill, in the law, set forth a waiver so it's
    not--that cannot be changed in the future without congressional
    approval. It can't be just a 1-year waiver, in other words; it
    has to be a long-term waiver to be effective, as I understand
    it. Is that correct?
        Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir, that is correct.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. My questions this morning are more along the
    line of deterrence and strategic posture. And the QDR has
    changed the focus of our strategy toward these irregular
    threats that were mentioned in your report. These are the same
    threats that caused us to rethink our nuclear posture in 2002.
    The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) was released in the wake of 9/
    11, when our forces were engaged on the ground in Afghanistan.
    The irregular threats that we faced in the war on terror had
    become very real for the American people during the winter of
    2001 and 2002, and perhaps many have already forgotten how real
    those threats are.
        In face of the changing reality, the Nuclear Posture Review
    was a complete change in strategic doctrine. And, I might add,
    the NPR was a policy document that was mandated by Congress. We
    told you to do it. That policy document did two major things.
    It reduced the number of operationally deployed nuclear
    warheads from 6,000 to 2,000, it expanded the role of nuclear
    deterrent to consider it an effective countermeasure against
    possible use of weapons of mass destruction by a rogue state.
        Now, the NPR both expanded the role of nuclear deterrence
    and decreased the number of warheads, setting the
    intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) number at 500. I
    would ask--you might remark to this--what has changed since
    2000--since January 2002 to necessitate a further reduction in
    our ICBM force? And am I correct in concluding that this simply
    is a budget decision that is driving this strategy?
        Mr. Wynne. Thank you very much, Senator.
        This goes back to the ``sovereign options'' comment that
    you had made in the mission of the Air Force.
        Senator Burns. I'm still trying to figure that one out.
        Mr. Wynne. The aim is to hold hostage other governments'
    intentions and to allow for humanitarian relief and nonkinetic
    action, as well as kinetic action. It's to make sure that the
    President is made aware, fully, through our information and
    surveillance and reconnaissance activity, of his options, and
    then allowing the National Command Authority to use the Air
    Force to fly and fight, if that is, in fact, the determined
    option they want to examine.
        This is also an option that the President has, in the sense
    of responding in a nuclear fashion and talking about the
    Nuclear Posture Review that we're all discussing about here.
    The U.S. Strategic Command commander, which is based in
    Nebraska, has made a determination that he can have a lower
    reduced target set for hostile response. That is a requirement
    that he then lays upon the U.S. Air Force as to how to cope
    with this reduced response. We have done an analysis and
    determined that we can accommodate that with, if you will,
    fewer ballistic missiles, and, frankly, fewer B-52 aircraft. He
    is endorsing this approach.
        As to whether or not it changes the actual determination of
    the number of nuclear warheads, has not been adjudicated; as to
    where the reduction in missiles will be taken, has not been
    adjudicated. Those things are, in fact, all under study. So
    far, the only thing I know is that the requirements we have
    been issued have been reduced.
        Senator Burns. Well, let's further investigate the B-52
    situation. As you know, we're taking another reduction, from 94
    to 56. I think that's the correct number. And that's the only
    long-distance horse that we've got. And when I made mention, a
    while ago, of our support of the ground troops on the ground,
    it has always been our carrier to reduce some of the challenges
    that we face on the ground. It's always been a very--very
    effective, with the addition of the global positioning system
    (GPS). And, also, it's been, sort of, our Iowa-class
    battleship, so to speak, whenever we go into an area.
        Now, that being said, if there is no long-range strike
    capability on the drawing board until 2016, why would we cut
    the most versatile long-range bomber from our fleet now,
    without anything on the drawing board, now, or, it seems like,
    in the near future?
        Mr. Wynne. In fact, we are very, very pleased that the QDR
    has endorsed, if you will, the long-range strike option and
    allowed us to proceed. We intend to come forward, in the fiscal
    year 2008 President's budget, with a hard plan to essentially
    offer a fly-before-buy option, so that we can, in fact, lock in
    a 2018 initial operational capability and try to make sure that
    is accurate.
        While looking at those requirements that we need, I
    appreciate the fact that the B-52 has been a very versatile
    weapons system--in fact, when I was out to look at it, I looked
    into the airplane and asked the commander, ``Is this the way it
    goes into combat?'' He said, ``No sir.'' He said, ``We''--as
    you correctly said--``We add a GPS antennae, we add a ground
    communications antennae, we add two laptops and a central cable
    right down the middle of the airplane, and turn it into a
    fairly versatile war machine.'' Having examined that, we think
    that we have an adequate supply of B-52s, with the reduced
    number. I think we're talking about reducing 38 of these over
    the course of the next 6 years.
        This is also, by the way, adjuncted by the B-1 and
    adjuncted by the B-2, which are also more modern weapons
    systems that we have. We feel like that we can go through the
    B-52 fleet and essentially pick out the best of the rest and
    use those well into the future. There's no intention to
    essentially stop using them.
        General Moseley. Sir, if I could add on, the B-1 is also
    the Iowa-class battleship. They're imperceptive in our
    employment difference. We operate them out of Diego Garcia.
    We've operated them--each of them out of expeditionary
    airfields. The B-52 is a valuable airplane. Last night, we
    dropped eight satellite-guided weapons off of it against
    hostiles in Afghanistan. But it could have been a B-1,
    depending on the rotation of the bombers at Diego Garcia.
        We've got, over the future years defense plan (FYDP), we've
    got $6.37 billion in bomber modifications and bomber
    improvements. We have a phase I, which we put about $4.5
    billion into the B-1, the B-2, and the B-52 for upgrades and
    modernization. We have about $1.6 billion in for the new
    bomber, with a 2018 initial operating capability (IOC), as
    mandated by the QDR. And then, we have a phase III, with about
    $275,000, that's looking at technologies beyond 2025 or 2035.
        Senator Burns, we take long-range strike very serious. The
    soul of an air force is range and payload and ability to access
    targets on a global scale. That's what we do different than an
    army or a navy. And so, a bomber is a very important tool in a
    combatant commander or a President's quiver, relative to those
    sovereign options.
        We have to be able to penetrate airspace. We have to be
    able to survive the penetrated airspace and maintain
    persistence coverage. And so, our desire to field a new
    striking bomber by 2018 is to leverage on the existing
    technologies that we have out of the joint unmanned combat air
    systems (JUCAS) program, and out of the things that we've
    learned with the unmanned aerial vehicles and the things we've
    learned in 15 years of combat, to be able to look at this new
    bomber.

                              BOMBER MODERNIZATION

        But, sir, we've got $1.13 billion in the B-52 for upgrade,
    $1.3 billion in the B-1 for upgrade, and $2.05 billion in the
    B-2 for upgrade, just in the future years defense plan alone.
        Senator Burns. Well, I would--just looking at--just looking
    at our threats and what we have to--and the capability of
    meeting some of those challenges, I look at the B-52 with great
    marvel and curiosity. One could say, about your fleet, you look
    at that airplane and says, ``They just don't make them like
    that anymore,'' because it has been a workhorse, and it
    continues to be a workhorse, and probably has outlived
    anybody's estimate of its longevity. So, I'm just sort of
    concerned along those areas.
        I've got a couple of other questions, Mr. Chairman. We've
    added more people to the subcommittee, and I know they have
    important questions. I've got a couple more. But thank you very
    much.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary and General. And I want to thank
    you, General, for bringing your stellar people here, and
    introducing them. And I can't resist saying, I was delighted to
    see two women as part of four people acknowledged for very
    special service to our country, and surprised one is so very
    young. But----
        General Moseley. Senator, that very young one has had
    multiple combat tours.
        Senator Feinstein. That's what I understand. Is this her
    fifth deployment?
        General Moseley. It will be----
        Sergeant Bobseine. It will be my fourth.
        General Moseley It will be her fourth. She's had three.
        Senator Feinstein. Fourth----
        General Moseley. She goes back in June.
        Senator Feinstein. That's amazing. Would it embarrass you
    if I asked how old you are?
        Sergeant Bobseine. I just turned 21, ma'am.
        Senator Feinstein. You just turned?
        Sergeant Bobseine. Twenty-one.
        Senator Feinstein. Twenty-one, oh. Well, now that you've
    finally reached maturity, let me----
        Senator Stevens. Why don't you ask her how she can carry
    that pack? Have you seen that pack they take with them, when
    they go out in those combat activities?
        Senator Feinstein. No.
        Senator Stevens. Tell her. Tell her how heavy your pack is.
        Sergeant Bobseine. It's about 90 pounds, ma'am, when it's
    fully loaded.
        Senator Feinstein. How long can you carry it before you get
    tired?
        Sergeant Bobseine. It depends, ma'am. As long as I have to.
        Senator Feinstein. Yeah, I guess you do pretty well.
        As long as you have to. Okay. All right.
        I wanted to, if I can, ask my questions on the C-17,
    General. Obviously, the C-17 is a very important program for
    California. It employs 6,500 people in Long Beach. It's got 400
    suppliers. It's a $3.7 billion asset to the State. But you have
    termed it a ``Golden Plane.'' And it certainly has provided its
    service in many different ways.
        It's my understanding that the Air Force requests funding
    for both advanced procurement of additional C-17s, along with
    money for shutting down the line in 2008. However, recently,
    it's my understanding, the position has changed slightly,
    requesting funding for seven additional C-17s as part of your
    number one priority on the unfunded list. Now, this request has
    had an impact on the high rate of attribution, as it continues
    to fly, I gather, 70 percent of the missions in anticipated use
    in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Air Force officials have
    suggested publicly that there might be a need to procure up to
    20 additional C-17s.
        I'd like to receive your very candid assessment of the
    capabilities of the C-17, and the Secretary's, as well, along
    with an explanation of why you chose to make the procurement of
    seven additional C-17s your top priority on the unfunded list.
        General Moseley. Senator, thank you for the opportunity to
    talk about the C-17.
        It is worth its weight in gold. It's a great design, and
    it's proven itself useful as an intertheater airlifter, as well
    as an intratheater airlifter. We've been able to use this
    airplane in areas that we've never used a strategic airlifter
    before, because it is reliable, and it is very capable to get
    in and out of shorter airfields. In fact, we were able to fly
    it directly from Charleston Air Force Base, North Carolina and
    McChord Air Force Base, Washington, to places in the United
    States and Europe, or fly it straight into Baghdad or straight
    into Balad or straight into Bagram in Afghanistan, without
    having to stop somewhere and transfer the cargo or the people
    to a smaller airplane. So, its been worth its weight in gold.
    And we have been flying it in rates in excess of what we
    programmed.
        The good news about this airplane is, we have the airplane
    instrumented, so we understand where the stresses are on the
    wings, in the fuselage, and on the structure. And as we look at
    that analysis, we see that we are stressing the airplane with
    multiple takeoffs and landings, and multiple operations in
    these shorter fields.
        Now, we have, out of the mobility capability study, 112 C-
    5s that is the bookend of the strategic airlifters. And, as the
    Secretary mentioned, we have congressional language that
    precludes retirement of the C-5A's. So, we have 112 C-5's. Out
    of the mobility capability study, the program of record of 180
    C-17s matched with 112 C-5s gives us sufficient airlift.
        But, ma'am, remember, in the mobility capability study, it
    also addresses even rail shipment, fast sealift, sealift pre-
    positioning ships, wartime reserve material pre-positioning.
    So, it's a bigger picture than just airlift.
        So, 180 is the program of record. But now that we have the
    ability to look at the data, we see that we are burning the
    airplanes up at a higher rate. So, our analysis tells us that
    the seven that we asked for in the unfunded priority list,
    along with the combat losses in the C-130 and our center wing-
    box issues with C-130s, will be sufficient.
        Now, we also have partnered with the Australians, and we
    understand that they have asked to buy four C-17s. The British
    are looking at an additional buy. General Jones--and his world
    is U.S. Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR), and North
    Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)--have expressed in
    additional C-17s. The world, I think, understands how valuable
    this airplane really is.
        Mr. Wynne. I can add to that, Senator, that, on page 1
    yesterday in the USA Today, you saw another illustration of the
    utility of the C-17, which was essentially a flying intensive
    care unit (ICU), made up for the medical evacuation of our
    soldiers and airmen and marines out of Balad into Landstuhl,
    Germany. This is a scheduled run using the versatility of this
    airplane. And we recognize that it is essentially being used at
    a little higher rate than we had anticipated it would be used
    at all in this war effort to support, as Senator Burns said,
    the ground warfare.
        The miracle of Iraq is actually in medical evacuation, and
    the fact that we can get people from the front lines into Balad
    and into Landstuhl and then back to Walter Reed Army Medical
    Center in very short order. And that is saving lives in a
    dramatic way.
        The C-17 is the workhorse of this engagement, without a
    doubt. The C-130 also works very hard during this time. Our
    assets are essentially wearing out, and we would like to make
    sure we have enough in reserve, if you will, to recapitalize.
        I would tell you that the next tanker is actually more
    valuable than the next C-17, because while the soul of the Air
    Force is, in fact, delivering power at long range, long-range
    strike, our expeditionary and agility forces require tanker
    operations, without a doubt.
        That having been said, we see that right now, because of
    the wear that they're getting--to get an equivalent of 180
    units, we may have to buy up to an additional 7 units to
    essentially meet the capacity requirements laid down in the
    mobility capability study. You asked, why did it show up as our
    number one unfunded priority? And that was the reason it showed
    up as our number one unfunded priority. We just see that wear
    and tear on this fleet, meeting the capacity requirements of
    the Mobility Capability Study would actually require up to
    seven additional airplanes.
        The addition to the international sales, I think, is very
    fulfilling. It almost ratifies, if you will, our look at the C-
    17 as an excellent airplane. Were NATO and the United Kingdom
    and Australia to buy this airplane, it would further relieve us
    of some of the missions we, in fact, are accomplishing today.
        General Moseley. Ma'am, two other----
        Senator Feinstein. Yes, General?
        General Moseley. Two other bits for you. When I was blessed
    to be the U.S. Central Command air component commander for
    Afghanistan and Iraq, we used the C-17 to make the largest
    humanitarian airdrop in the history of combat aviation. Those
    early drops were made to Afghanistan and flown out of Germany.
        We also used the C-17 for the largest airdrop of soldiers
    since the Korean War carrying the 173d to northern Iraq. So,
    the airplane is not only the finest flying hospital, it is also
    the finest deliverer of humanitarian assistance, as well as
    paratroopers. And you can fly it in and out of small airfields.
    So, that's how I've assessed this as being worth its weight in
    gold.
        Senator Feinstein. I thank you both for that.
        I'd like to just add one other thing. Some of us have
    really fought the reopening of the nuclear door, and the
    development of new nuclear weapons, for a number of reasons I
    won't go into here. So far, we have won. We won on the low-
    yield nuclear weapons. We won on the robust nuclear earth
    penetrator. The fiscal year 2006 authorized $4 million to
    conduct sled tests and to better understand the physics of
    penetrating geologic media. The 2006 appropriations conference
    report provided $4 million for this. And I've been in
    communication with the Secretary of Energy. I want to just read
    his response to a letter I wrote. His--well, the response came
    from Linton Brooks----
        Senator Stevens. Senator, could we make it a little short,
    please----
        Senator Feinstein. Yeah, I'll make it as----
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. If you will?
        Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Short as I can, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Well, the time has expired.
        Senator Feinstein. Could I just----
        Senator Stevens. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Finish?--saying that no
    sled test would be conducted at Sandia or any other facility.
    He says that if the Department of Defense (DOD) chose to
    conduct a test at a DOD facility, he believed that would be
    fully consistent.
        My question was going to be, what kind of sled tests can
    you inform the subcommittee are being conducted, and what
    guarantee is there that this will not be a nuclear subterfuge?
        Mr. Wynne. I guess, very quickly, we need the statistics
    and the physics just to make sure that we, in fact, have the
    right kind of arguments for the use of conventional warheads at
    that kind of speed. We really don't even know whether or not
    any projectile will penetrate at those kinds of velocities. It
    may actually always become a surface issue. So, this is really
    about determination of physics. But I think the agreement is
    actually that the concept of the robust nuclear Earth
    penetrator (RNEP) is not at issue any longer. We're talking
    about just penetrators and penetrator tests.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. I appreciate it. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, General Moseley, I want to get into the area
    of fleet--a fleet of aging refueling tankers, that we're
    experiencing problems and have great challenges. I don't
    believe, Mr. Secretary, that we can wait 35 years to replace
    our tankers. The President's budget, as I understand it, calls
    for retiring 114 KC-135Es in fiscal year 2007 and 2008.
    Clearly, we will not have replacements available, even by the
    end of the fiscal year, 2008, General Moseley. What assurances
    can you give us, if any, that a replacement aircraft will be
    identified and in production before the risk of retiring the
    KC-135s becomes untenable?
        General Moseley. Senator, thanks for that question because
    this is an important issue. And let me echo my boss and say
    that the first tanker is more important to me right now than
    the 181st C-17. Even with the seven that we've included in the
    unfunded priority list, the tanker program is exceptionally
    important to us, because it provides those airlift legs.
        Senator Shelby. Without them, you have no legs, do you?
        General Moseley. Sir, not just us, this is for the joint
    team. The Navy has no legs, the marines operate at much shorter
    distances. But there is no range without the American tanker.
        The 114 KC-135Es that we're talking about, there is still
    congressional language that precludes us from retiring any of
    those airplanes. Our preference would be to retire the KC-
    135Es----
        Senator Shelby. Yeah.
        General Moseley [continuing]. The 114 aircraft have crews
    across the total force--Guard, Active, and Reserve. We want to
    bring the KC-135R model crews up, so we can generate sorties
    with the more reliable R model.
        General Handy, before he left U.S. Transportation Command,
    and General Schwartz and General McNabb, out at Scott Air Force
    Base, now believe there's only going to be a 9 percent decrease
    in total offload by retiring the E models sooner and increasing
    the crew ratios on the R models so we can fly those aircraft.
        Senator, the other reality is, we don't deploy the E models
    into the U.S. Central Command Area of Operations. When I was
    the air component commander, I wouldn't take them. They're less
    reliable. You carry less of a load. The engines are such that
    you can't lift the weight. You have to download the fuel on
    them. You're much better off with the----
        Senator Shelby. We've got to retire them, haven't we?
        General Moseley. What's that, sir?
        Senator Shelby. We have to retire them.
        General Moseley. Sir, our proposal would be to retire
    those----
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        General Moseley. We need to take them off the books, take
    the crews, put them in the R model, and let's get on with the
    new program. And we have all that in play now.
        Senator Shelby. I know you don't have an exact date--if you
    do, you keep it to yourself, which you should--do you have any
    ballpark idea when we would start?--first, you've got to
    identify, you know, the aircraft, and then start procuring the
    aircraft. I know this is down the road, but you've got--you
    think down the road.
        Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Wynne. We do try to think down the road. Thank you,
    Senator, for that. We hope to get release from the Deputy
    Secretary to start this procurement in the very, very near
    future. I have tried to hold the team, if you will, to a
    September release of a request for proposal, a near-term
    release of a request for information, to turn that information
    into a request for proposal in September, which would lead to a
    mid-year next-year potential award. These are our targets right
    now. They are looking forward. If that happens, then you've
    probably got 24 to 36 months beyond that before you begin to
    receive the tanker fleet.
        Since the basic platform we have seen right now is becoming
    available across the world, we are hopeful that these companies
    can accelerate their deliveries to us.
        Senator Shelby. That would help.
        Mr. Secretary, we hear a lot of stuff, and sometimes you've
    got to throw it away, but we've been hearing that some senior
    leaders in the Air Force are on record stating that the next-
    generation tanker we're talking about must do more than just
    air refueling. In other words, it could have multiple--
    multipurposes, such as air transportation capability for
    passengers, cargo, aeromedical evacuation, and so forth. Could
    you elaborate on that?
        Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir, I can. Even our current fleet of KC-
    135s, in fact, performs medical evacuations from the Pacific,
    because of the legs that we get out of those tanker aircraft.
    We can also carry a limited amount of cargo on KC-10s, because
    they have floors in them, and adequate doors to get things in
    and out of that airplane.
        General Moseley and I are very concerned about people
    piling on excess requirements, driving the cost of this tanker
    up. We are committed----
        Senator Shelby. We certainly don't need that, do we?
        Mr. Wynne. We are committed, throughout our acquisition
    program, to try to get baseline utility, instead of having
    people pile on excess requirements. Modern technology and
    modern manufacturing techniques can, if you will, square the
    circle by giving us something we might not have specifically
    specified. But our desire is to keep things to a minimum;
    hence, the F-22A; hence, in the transformational satellite
    (TSAT), we are trying to keep that to a technically mature
    product; the space-based radar, all of our programs, we are
    committed to taking a very hard line to essentially piling on
    requirements.
        Senator Shelby. Yeah, you don't need to buy something you
    don't need, or foresee that you need, do you?
        Mr. Wynne. Well, I would say that I hate to forego options,
    but, at the same time, I have a very severe cost constraint in
    the future. It is not going away. I think, as Senator Stevens
    has indicated, this is something we're going to have to be very
    careful with in the future.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        General Moseley.
        General Moseley. Senator, let me add on to that, also. In
    the request for information (RFI), when we get that out--and
    hopefully that'll come out soon--it puts everything on the
    table, as far as options for the airplane.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        General Moseley. It's a good piece of work, and it opens
    the door for anybody with good ideas.
        At the end of the day, when we build this thing, it has to
    be an A model. We have to be able to get the lowest cost, most
    basic airplane, and get it to the field to address these
    deficiencies that we've got. And, sir, I think you would
    appreciate that we won't be able to buy these airplanes a
    hundred a year. I suspect we'll buy these airplanes at the same
    rate that we bought the other big airplanes, which will be $15
    to $20 billion, which--you take the 417 R models, divide that
    into $15 to $20 billion, and you've come close to a 30-year
    program to buy this airplane out, which means the R model will
    be around that long. So, this has to be an A model. We can
    reduce any turbulence in the system and build the most simple
    airplane and keep the cost down.
        Senator Shelby. But you've got to do it, haven't you?
        Mr. Wynne. Well, sir, we have to do it, absolutely. And
    what I want to do is make sure that we use a Microsoft-like
    model, where we can plug-and-play----
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        Mr. Wynne [continuing]. Into the future. We hope that our
    contractors are very aware of the impact on modularity.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        General and Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. We--here in
    the Senate and over in the Pentagon, we've got some people
    that, at times, get pretty puffed up and wear starched shirts.
    We all understand that. But I've dealt a lot with both of you,
    and you, I think, do great credit to this country and are
    terrific in the jobs that you hold. I appreciate your work.
        I want to make a couple of comments about the B-52s,
    following on Senator Burns' comments, and then have you respond
    to it. And then I want to ask you about the Happy Hooligans, if
    you----
        First of all, the B-52s, my understanding is that the
    official estimates of the Air Force is, that 21-year-old airman
    behind you will be 55 years old by the time you estimate that
    the B-52s will have no life left. So, think about that, 35
    additional years of life, according to the official estimates
    of the Air Force. She'd be 55 years of age at the time we say
    the Air Force has now flown the B-52s beyond its time.
        Number two, you mentioned that there were precision-guided
    weapons dropped last evening by B-52s. I assume, in
    Afghanistan, there's no antiaircraft batteries, or very few, so
    it was probably not standoff, you could fly into the theater.
    But if it were standoff, a precision-guided weapon dropped on a
    standoff capability, then you would--you used a bomb truck. The
    B-52 is a bomb truck. You could have used a different truck.
    You could have used a B-1, B-2. The B-52, as a bomb truck, is
    one-third the cost of operation of a B-2, and one-half the cost
    of operation of a B-1. When you are desperately short of
    funding--and I don't see the Air Force budget growing the way
    some of the other areas grow--when you're desperately short of
    funding, I wonder about the advisability of going from 93 down
    to 56 of the least expensive bomber we have, especially when we
    are moving more and more towards precision-guided weapons. And
    so, I think we should talk a bit about that.
        My understanding is, General, that there were 42 B-52s
    deployed during the Afghanistan and Iraq War, but it took 80
    airplanes--82 to 84 B-52s, really, to move in and out, in a
    rotational capability, to satisfy that requirement. In the
    future, we couldn't do that. I believe we used 140 B-52s in the
    first gulf war. I think we've now used 80 to--82 to 84 B-52s to
    circle in and out of the second. And we're proposing that we go
    down to 56 B-52s, which is the least-cost operation of a bomber
    fleet, by one-third or one-half. And, once again--I didn't mean
    to single you out, young lady, but, by the time you reach 55,
    they say we can keep using that B-52 all of these years. I
    think it's a bargain for the taxpayers.
        So, let me ask you to respond to that. And then, if you
    can, let me also have just a moment to respond to the B-52s--or
    to the Happy Hooligans, rather.
        General Moseley. Sir, the range that we're operating these
    airplanes, from Diego Garcia to targets in Afghanistan, are the
    same distance--and this gets at Senator Burns' question--it's
    the same distance from Tampa, Florida, to Juneau, Alaska. So,
    our crews are flying the same distances on these missions from
    Florida to Alaska every day, and delivering ordnance. So,
    that's the benefit of the tanker, and that's the benefit of the
    bomber.
        Sir, in the future, in this unknown future, we have to be
    able to operate in opposed airspace, and we have to be able to
    deliver these effects. With the F-22, we can maintain the
    dominance to get the bomber to the target. Some of the worst
    lessons learned in Air Force history were the lessons of 1942
    and 1943, where we lost 30 to 40 to 50 percent of the bomber
    fleets on missions at Schweinfurt and Ploesti and Regensburg,
    et cetera. The bomber has to survive to be able to deliver that
    ordnance. When you have no air defenses, then the truck will
    do. When you have air defenses, you have to beat them down,
    suppress them, so you can get the heavy lifter to the targets.
    And so, that's the dilemma that we face against fifth
    generation surface-to-air missiles and fifth generation
    fighters, which is why the F-22 is important to us.
        But, sir, we used every bomber that we could get once we
    got them in theater. But, sir, remember, we also redeployed
    them back to home station to minimize the time away on the
    people. So, there were a lot of the bombers that we did not
    just park at Thumrait or at places--other expeditionary
    airfields. We rotated the aircraft and the crews out to try to
    maintain some rotation time-away-from-home normalcy for the
    crews.
        Sir, another way to do that would be to have all of the 50-
    plus bombers combat-capable with the $1.3 billion spent on all
    of the upgrades, and you could deploy the airplanes, and then
    rotate the crews, instead of the other way around.
        So, sir, if you're asking me, do I love the B-52? I do.
    Have I used it a lot in combat? I have. Have I dropped a lot of
    bombs off of it? I have. Have I shot a lot of cruise missiles
    off of it? I have.
        Senator Dorgan. If you had your druthers, would you like
    more than 56--if you had your druthers and had the money to----
        General Moseley. Sir, I know your attachment to the B-52,
    but, let me say, if I had my druthers, I would build a new
    bomber. I would build new bombers so I could penetrate airspace
    and maintain persistence, and I can deliver this effect,
    whether it's opposed or unopposed airspace. And that's the
    cruncher, and with the money.
        Senator Dorgan. I understand, yeah.
        Let me just quickly--thank you for your answer, General.
        General Moseley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Dorgan. There's obviously room for a lot of
    discussion in that answer. But I appreciate your work on these
    issues.
        Let me ask you about the Happy Hooligans, in Fargo. We're
    now scheduled for unmanned aerial vehicles and some discussion
    about some interim C-130s and the light cargo plan. Can you
    tell me what the approach is for that unit?
        General Moseley. Sir, we're working hard to get the UAV
    presence right. We have North Dakota, New York, California,
    Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and we're working hard to get the 21
    orbits, which is a euphemism for 21 separate customers, to be
    able to deliver the effect, whether it's surveillance or
    whether it's strike. And so, to get the airplanes to North
    Dakota which is our desire, we have to get crews trained and
    operations up and going to conduct combat operations.
        The National Guard Bureau--having talked to Lieutenant
    General Steve Blum a bit, the National Guard Bureau has talked
    to the Adjutant General in North Dakota about four or more C-
    130s as an interim bridge until we can get some fidelity on the
    joint cargo aircraft. We've had no opposition to that, for
    sure. I don't know many of the details, other than there's been
    some discussion. And, sir, we're not opposed to that. That's
    not a bad way to go.
        We're working the joint cargo aircraft issue with the Army,
    to determine the number of these aircraft, how best to employ
    them in theater, conduct homeland security and homeland defense
    with them, and upgrade some of these systems.
        An aircraft of that type would have been very useful in the
    early stages of Afghanistan and in the early stages of Iraq.
    And it would be very useful today, to be able to move things in
    and out of those smaller airfields.
        And so, we're focused on that, sir, and we're working that
    with the Army.
        Senator Dorgan. Going back, just briefly, to the bomber
    issue, I understand the 2017 timeframe and so on. I have also
    watched the tanker, the new tanker issue languish. And, you
    know, I don't know when we'll have a new bomber. I understand
    the need for it, but I still think we need to rethink the cost
    of deploying these bombers. And I might say that with--
    particularly with standoff precision weapons, these bombers all
    become trucks when you're using standoff precision weapons,
    because they're not part of the battlefield, at that point. But
    I just--I hope we can continue the discussion about B-52s.
        General Moseley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Dorgan. I thank you very much for your stewardship
    of the Air Force, Mr. Secretary and General Moseley.
        General Moseley. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator. I think the
    two co-chairmen remember when President Truman tried to stop
    the B-52. It was built during President Truman's day. It's been
    around a long time. We'll have to discuss that.
        Senator Inouye, if you have--your opening statement, space
    in the record has been reserved for you, my friend. You're up.
        Senator Inouye. First, my apologies for being late. We had
    another function.
        Mr. Secretary, General, I'd like to take this opportunity
    to remind some of my colleagues of the great work you've done
    in Enduring Freedom, in Iraqi Freedom, and Noble Eagle. I find
    that the media and my colleagues at times focus too much on the
    land forces, the marines and the Army. There's much
    justification for that, but I'm certain those men and women on
    the ground would be the first to tell all of us that without
    the Air Force, they're really in a fix. And so, I wish to thank
    you and the members of your command, and men and women who have
    done so much for us with all their sacrifices.
        Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have my full statement made part
    of the record.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inouye. I just have one question, sir. This is on
    your transformation. And I would like to just touch on one
    aspect of transformation. You speak of efficiency and
    consolidating redundant activities. While I think all of us
    support efficiencies, I do not want to be part of a group that
    would send a signal to certain geographic regions suggesting
    that maybe they're not that important. I think it is critical
    that a major command retain the ability to manage its people
    and its resources.
        Now, for example, the Air Force is exploring the alteration
    of chain of command for operational units. And units that are
    currently reporting to Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) would
    communicate directly with the Air Combat Command. Now, that
    would seem to me--I'm not an Air Force general, but it would
    seem to me that you would make a four-star general a
    figurehead. He has the troops, but somebody else has command
    and control over them. So, I would hope that our forces in
    Europe and our forces in the Pacific are provided the
    importance that I think they deserve.
        What are your comments, sir?
        Mr. Wynne. Well, one of the things is that I'm very proud
    to have a partner like General Moseley to work with. And when
    we talked about trying to husband our resources and
    understanding the increasing costs of our personnel, and
    concluded that we would take a 40,000 full-time equivalent
    reduction in our service, he stepped right up and said that the
    active should lead from the front, and the active should lead
    from the top, and has looked into ways to economize on 30
    general officer slots, which really gets at your question, I
    think, in a very direct way.
        That having been said, I have left all of the command
    relationships, if you will, to my partner in his regard to the
    military operation, as I think I should, and I'd like for him
    to take on that question very well.
        General Moseley. Senator Inouye, thank you for the chance
    to answer that, because there are some misunderstandings out
    there.
        Our desire is not for PACAF, for the U.S. Air Forces in
    Europe (USAFE), to become subordinate to Air Combat Command or
    Air Mobility Command or Air Force Space Command or Air Force
    Materiel Command or Air Education and Training Command. They
    are major commands, with representational responsibilities and
    command responsibilities to U.S. Pacific Command and U.S.
    European Command. And we take that very seriously, as a part of
    the joint team.
        What we have looked at, though, is using the numbered air
    forces in the Pacific, 11th in Alaska, 5th in Japan, 7th on the
    Korean peninsula, in the new Kinney Warfighting Center, on
    Hickam Air Force Base, which may or may not become 13th Air
    Force, as the fighting forces for the Pacific, which they have
    historically been, and to look, if there are not management
    oversight things within all of the major commands, the
    functional areas of personnel, civil engineering,
    communications, that we can streamline to look at saving
    management oversight, not command oversight.
        General Paul Hester still has command of Pacific Air
    Forces, and he is responsible to Admiral Fox Fallon as his
    senior airman in theater--same with 11th, 5th, 7th, and what
    may become 13th on Hickam Air Force Base, which is now the
    Kinney Warfighting Headquarters.
        So, sir, we intend, in no way, to break the command
    structure down, and we are looking for efficiencies in those
    functional areas where it makes sense such as personnel
    activities or civil engineering or communications. And I think
    you would want us to look at that to see if there's not some
    inefficiencies there. But there is no intent to have the
    Continental United States major command headquarters having
    anything to do with the command prerogatives or
    responsibilities of Europe and the Pacific.
        Senator Inouye. Well, I thank you very much.
        In closing, I'd just like to reiterate what my chairman has
    said time and again. The two aircrafts that are most important
    at this moment in our history, F-22 and the C-17, take good
    care of them, please.
        The other matter that concerns me is the fact that our
    bomber fleet seems to get smaller and smaller. And I believe
    the time should come when serious consideration should be made
    in developing a new bomber, penetration bomber. I would assume
    that that is in your minds or your planning.
        I thank you, sir.
        General Moseley. Sir, it is in our minds, and out of the
    QDR, we have a date on the wall of 2018 for the initial
    operational capability of a long-range strike platform, which I
    believe is a bomber. And we're working hard to begin to set the
    stage for that acquisition program, and to go through all of
    the right processes to be able to get at something that we
    could field by 2018.
        The bomber is a critical tool. And, sir, I think you would
    agree, the soul of an air force is just that, range and
    payload. And in today's uncertain world, to be able to range
    those targets with that B-52 at those distances, which are from
    Tampa, Florida, to Juneau, Alaska, every day with those crews,
    that's a powerful tool for General John Abizaid and the air
    forces in the Central Command region.
        Senator Inouye. That's a good answer.
        General Moseley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici, do you have questions?
        Senator Domenici. Do you have somebody else, so that I
    could have a minute?
        Senator Stevens. I have some questions I'd like to ask.
        Senator Domenici. Please do.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan has talked about the aging
    fleet of bombers. Matter of fact, it's my understanding that
    our total aircraft inventory is the oldest in history now. We
    have--the average age of aircraft is--all aircraft--is 23
    years. Tanker fleet's over 41 years, in average. C-130's
    average is over 25 years. I don't know what the average age of
    the B-52 is. It's got to be 50.
        General Moseley. Forty-four.
        Senator Stevens. Forty-four? And you're now making
    reductions in your end strength. And we understand that. You
    have to capitalize your aircraft. But I think people are
    inclined to look at the number of Air Force personnel that are
    in the war zone. They're not as high as the others, the Army.
    But if you look at the overall activity of the air bridge, the
    maintaining of, you know, the constant air patrol over other
    areas of the world, it's still got enormous demands on your end
    strength. Now, last year, when the Air Force appeared, the Air
    Force was over its end strength. Now it looks like, in terms of
    applying your end-strength reductions, you're going to have an
    imbalance between officers and enlisted men. Is that right?
        General Moseley. Sir, if I could try the context of the
    question, which is, one of the things about our aging fleet
    that I think you and Senator Inouye have highlighted back to us
    on occasion is that if we get everything that we want in our
    future years defense program which is debatable--and, of
    course, we propose, and you dispose--the age of our fleet will
    go from 23 years to almost 25 years. We are right on the
    tipping point of being behind the investment bow wave, instead
    of in front of it. And the U.S. Air Force has never in its life
    stood down an airplane because of age. And we are now on the
    cusp of trying to set up an Air Fleet Viability Board, because
    we now are on the fourth step of our 12-step program, realizing
    we are going to be operating an aging fleet. So, we need to
    understand better how our airplanes age.
        We have to get ahead of this investment curve at some point
    into the future. We cannot keep pushing this bow wave out, and
    every 5 years we lose 5 years of our life, which is why we
    really want to start to invest in our long-range strike
    aircraft and begin to divest ourselves of some of our aging air
    fleet.
        That having been said, we are looking at better ways of
    employing our manpower, and we find ourselves with almost an
    iceberg, where we have a presence very similar to the Navy. We
    must maintain the presence in the Pacific, in the area of North
    Korea, the Korean Peninsula, in Japan, and yet, yes, some of
    the people at Kadena. For example, when I was there, just last
    week, I found that 500 of those folks are, in fact, cross-
    deployed into supporting Iraq. So, we are managing our force
    deployment across the world, trying to maintain, if you will,
    both presence and activity within the context of the theater.
        We have a little bit of a problem, because our C-17 pilots
    are, in fact, not in the theater long enough to be recognized
    as combatants, although they get shot at quite a bit, and they
    would, of course, argue about that. Many times, our B-52
    pilots, who do not get based, if you will, into a theater, are,
    in fact, flying out of Diego Garcia or Guam, do not get credit
    for being participants in the war. Nonetheless, we know that
    they have dropped ordnance--in fact, just last night--and yet,
    they are not seen as performing combatant activities. Nor do
    our reachback activities--people flying the Predator out of
    Nellis Air Force Base, or if we do get UAV squadrons
    distributed through the National Guard, we haven't quite come
    culturally to what to call those folks. In a very similar way,
    we do have several people tied down in the missile fields,
    using and guiding our space assets.
        And so, you are right, sir, we have about 179,000 people
    that are right now reporting to combatant commanders.
        Senator Stevens. I have, several times, suggested to this
    administration and past administrations that we have some
    defense bonds. We have to bind some way to finance a follow-on
    bomber, and we have to have some way to get to the Joint Strike
    Fighter. And part of us--I think I speak for my co-chairman--as
    far as our watch is concerned, we don't want to leave without
    knowing that there will be a follow-on bomber, there will be a
    follow-on joint fighter like the Joint Strike Fighter. I don't
    see it right now. We're putting those off. Joint Strike Fighter
    seems to be slipping and any concept of a new bomber is
    slipping. And my friend from North Dakota and I had a little
    discussion about it. I think we've got to stop supporting some
    of these ancient planes and start putting that money into
    getting us into another generation, as far as Joint Strike
    Fighter and the bomber, or we have to go to some defense bonds
    and get the money now--I think the public would buy them--for
    the defense force of the third decade of this century. You
    can't get there without money now. And we can't keep up the old
    ones and ever hope to start getting the replacements that are
    necessary.
        So, I hope we can have a dialogue with the administration
    and with you about finding some way to finance it. It's not
    dissimilar from the other committee that Senator Inouye and I
    serve on, in terms of the airways. We have to have a new airway
    system. We've got an analog system out there, but we're flying
    digital airplanes, and we've got to have a new system. But the
    only way to do it is to find some way to fund it now and have
    that money paid back over a period of years. Same thing here.
    We have to fund these things now. Within this next decade, we
    have to start a follow-on bomber, and we have to be assured
    that the Joint Strike Fighter is coming. But I don't see it
    yet.
        Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And, General, a pleasure to be with you again. And----
        General Moseley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. Secretary, it's good to see
    you.
        I only have three or four questions. We talk a lot about
    these, you and I and others. We have the two bases in New
    Mexico that have come into focus now, by coincidence--Cannon,
    one located at Clovis--is on your radar screen, because it fell
    upon that base to get a very special denomination in the BRAC
    inclusions when it was set up as a--what was the word used, the
    favored word to describe it, what would it be?
        Mr. Wynne. Well, they asked us to go for a follow-on
    mission, I believe, to try to ensure the continuity of the
    base.
        Senator Domenici. But it was called an ``enclave.''
        Mr. Wynne. An enclave, I think is the unique term of art.
    Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. And it remains an enclave for a
    substantial period of time, by definition of the BRAC
    Commission. It's now in--only had that status for months, but
    it can remain that way for years. It has been everybody's
    desire that that not remain an enclave for a long time--is that
    correct?--that it be done--the enclave be determined----
        Mr. Wynne. I think it's a little bit unfair to leave a
    community on edge.
        Senator Domenici. Correct.
        Mr. Wynne. I want to resolve this within the context of
    this year, if it's possible. I have kind of set targets out
    there for a June or July resolution.
        Senator Domenici. Now, much has been going on, by way of
    background determinations, following certain practices and
    procedures, to make sure everybody knows what's going on. And--
    --
        Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. And just recently----
        Mr. Wynne [continuing]. We have worked very hard with the
    local community.
        Senator Domenici. Correct.
        Mr. Wynne. We are working other agencies to try to identify
    the maximum number of opportunities for that base.
        Senator Domenici. And, in the meantime, things are in a
    status quo.
        Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir. In the meantime, things are in a
    status quo. We hope to bring this to a resolution by mid-year.
        Senator Domenici. For which we are very grateful to all
    concerned, including Congress for putting it in that status
    following the BRAC determination. Now, as you know, just
    recently there has been a workshop regarding Cannon to provide
    Federal agencies with opportunities to consider potential uses.
    Can either of you, or both of you, describe, in whatever way is
    appropriate, how the workshops went? And can you update us on
    the Department's long-term plan, if there is one, or if it is
    shaping up, however you might describe it?
        Mr. Wynne. I guess I would describe it in the latter
    condition. It is shaping up. We have had, I thought, a positive
    workshop, but we have had a relatively few respondents, some of
    whom have been very positive, however. And so, we are hoping to
    continue this, if you will, missionary work, together with the
    community, describing the positive attributes that are
    available at Cannon Air Force Base. As you know, we have a lot
    of our Air Force officers who, in fact, have been there. We
    were very sad to hear of the death of one of the leading town
    citizens and sponsors, and recognize that we, in his legacy,
    need to continue this work to resolve this issue.
        Senator Domenici. Well, this won't go on for long--you
    know, indefinitely, will it, Mr. Secretary or General?
        Mr. Wynne. No, sir. We are trying to draw this to a
    conclusion. I would, on the outside, because every process
    we've ever done seems to slow down, say it's this year, but I
    am trying to get it done this summer.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        General Moseley, do you have anything to add on that? And
    I'll move over to Holloman for a moment.
        General Moseley. No, sir. I would just add that the
    community has been great to work with. It has been very open
    about the varieties of teams that have come out and looked, and
    the variety of opportunities. Doc is going to be missed by all
    of us. Randy is doing a great job, and the community has been
    very supportive of those folks that are out there to look at
    options. We, along with the Secretary, we get weekly progress
    reports. The staff understands that there is a motivation to do
    this sooner, versus later.
        Senator Domenici. What does the Air Force need from moving
    over there, now, to the other side of the State--White Sands
    Missile Range, Alamogordo, and New Mexico--to make sure that
    joint training becomes a reality? Fort Bliss is becoming a
    training area of major proportions. And so, the question is,
    clearly, how will White Sands Missile Range and--Holloman fit
    into that, if you know?
        General Moseley. Sir, let me address that one, because it
    gets into ranges and training space. It would be no surprise
    for you to hear an Air Force chief say, ``Big ranges,
    supersonic airspace, ranges that we can drop bombs on are
    premium commodities for us these days.'' The ranges that we
    have in New Mexico, the ranges that we have in Alaska, the
    ranges that we have in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada, cannot be
    replicated anywhere. We have to hang onto those ranges and
    avoid encroachment.
        The footprint of the weapons that we have now require
    larger airspace. The speed of the aircraft require bigger
    spaces. And the ability to instrument these ranges, and the
    ability to do this jointly, is critical to all of us.
        Senator Domenici. All right.
        General Moseley. You know very well what Red Flag is. Red
    Flag is now in two parts, one in Alaska and one in Nevada. But
    the size of the ranges and the airspace are critical for us.
    Having spent a tour or so in Alamogordo, the White Sands
    Missile Range, the McGregor airspace, and the ability to
    partner with operations out of Fort Bliss are very important
    for us in the future as we look at marrying systems, airborne
    UAVs and weapons with our Army brothers and sisters. So, sir,
    that range is important to us.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I want to thank both of you for
    your continued cooperation. And I think I speak for the entire
    community, I don't think there is a more cooperative community
    in all of the United States than that one. And it has been
    reciprocal on the part of the Defense Department. It's obvious
    that the mission at Cannon is changing. It is clearly not going
    to be the same kind of Air Force base it was before, a single
    purpose. Clearly, it's being looked at at a much--in a much
    broader way. And I think that's good for the country, in terms
    of what I see as this joint operation concept, which it may end
    up taking the lead in. And, for that, we're grateful.
        Mr. Chairman and co-chairman, you have helped us get to
    where we are, and we're very appreciative. We will always be
    appreciative for it. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Senator Dorgan, you said you had another question?
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I didn't want the term
    ``ancient'' to hang out there until the next hearing. ``Ancient
    aircraft.'' I wanted to make a point, if I can.
        I think your comments and the comments by Senator Inouye
    about modernization are really important. There's no question
    that we have to move to a new bomber at some point, support the
    C-17, support the F-22, and so on. But I do want to point out,
    with respect to the F-52 flight--or B-52 airplanes, these are
    not ancient planes. It is true the airframe has some time on
    them. But they are low-hour airplanes. When you get on an
    airplane at the airport out here, you're probably, in most
    cases, going to fly a commercial airliner that has three and
    four times the hours the average B-52 has on it.
        Number two, most of that B-52 is new, and we've spent a
    great deal of money to modernize it.
        And, number three, finally and importantly, it costs one-
    third the cost to fly that, versus a B-2, and one-half the cost
    to fly it, versus a B-1.
        We will need a new penetrating bomber, but we're also going
    to need bomb trucks. The least expensive bomb truck, and one
    that is still modern inside, in my judgment, is the B-52. And
    we always ought to look for the least-cost opportunity. And, as
    I said, it'll last 35 years, until that young lady's 55 years
    old.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Stevens. That's a discussion for another time.
        I'd like to ask one question about satellites. We have
    really emphasized, in this subcommittee, the development,
    deployment, and protection of the military satellites. They're
    very important, not only for the GPS system, but we have lots
    of other involvement--some, highly classified. But in the last
    few years, there's been significant cost overruns, in terms of
    the satellite programs. And that includes the space-based
    infrared system (SBIRS) high and the national polar orbiting
    operational environmental satellite system. We are really
    looking now at trying to find some way to improve the program
    management and to really ensure that these technologies are
    matured.
        Can you tell us, what are you doing to follow on that
    process?
        Mr. Wynne. Well, thank you very much, Senator, for that.
        We are really taking this to heart. We have, I think,
    reduced our acquisition force in the space area way too much.
    It is now showing and telling, as a result, in cost overruns,
    due to requirements growth and/or, frankly, just bad
    engineering quality has affected us on a couple of occasions.
        We think that the first opportunity we have is to increase
    our talent pool, and manage it better, so we get the best
    talent on all these hard problems. The second thing we are
    doing is to make sure that we go with a baseline technology-
    mature craft. It is a part of our configuration freeze routine
    that we are trying to make sure that we have the right level of
    technology, not more, going up on our rockets. We have
    successfully gotten our rockets to the point where they are
    very efficient launch vehicles. However, we now have to work on
    our satellites so they, if you will, can fly on a schedule.
        We are committed to bringing to your attention the reduced
    technology risk for the transformational satellite, for space-
    based radar, as well as what we have done to mitigate the
    space-based infrared and the national polar orbiting
    operational environmental satellite system (NPOES) satellites.
        This is a very difficult area. I think it's one that merits
    your attention. And we are giving it that.
        Senator Stevens. General Moseley, our conference report
    last year highlighted this and asked the Air Force to really
    monitor the space radar and transformational satellite
    communications program. Can you tell us what steps have been
    taken to follow up on that urgency?
        General Moseley. Sir, as we've talked about the F-22 and
    the tanker, to build an A model, or to build an initial block
    satellite is what Secretary Wynne and I have pressed on the
    staff. Instead of attempting to upgrade this thing as it is
    being built, our desire is to freeze the configuration, whether
    it is TSAT or whether it is space radar or whether it is any of
    our new satellites, so that we don't continue to add things to
    it and increase cost and risk to the program. Because by doing
    that, the contractor, the user, and the end result is, it takes
    longer, it costs more money, and there's more risk.
        We have also focused on the known technologies. Space radar
    is a good example of what's out there, as far as the modules
    and the sensors to build the plan or array that exists today,
    instead of trying to leap out 10 or 15 or 20 years into the new
    technology.
        So, sir, the two of us have been taking this very seriously
    since our assumption of these jobs to try to get the cost down
    on the satellites, the cost down on space operation, and a lot
    more visibility into the acquisition process and the
    contracting process, to be able to deliver these things on time
    and on schedule.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much.
        For the benefit of Senator Domenici and our co-chairman, I
    want to make sure they have met these young men and women
    you've brought to this--to the hearing today. Senators, let me
    introduce to you Polly-Jan Bobseine--is that right?
        Sergeant Bobseine. That's right, thank you.
        Senator Stevens And Tec Sergeant Brad Reilly----
        Sergeant Reilly. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. And Lieutenant Colonel Ann
    Konnath--is that right, Colonel?--and Lieutenant Colonel Trey
    Turner. We're delighted to have you with us today. They've all
    had repeated assignments to the war zone, and deployments, and
    I guess that Polly-Jan is going back again soon. She's just
    turned 21.
        General Moseley. Sir, Sergeant Reilly is going back in
    July. Senior Airman Bobseine is going back in June. So, this'll
    be five deployments for him, after July, and four for her,
    after June.
        Senator Stevens. We appreciate your commitment to our
    country. We're proud to have you here with us.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        We thank the General and the Secretary for appearing here
    today. And we also, obviously, thank those who have accompanied
    you.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                    Questions Submitted to Michael W. Wynne
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                              JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

        Question. The Joint Strike Fighter will incorporate advanced
    technologies in a number of areas. How can you be assured that JSF is
    ready for production when so little of the test program has been
    completed?
        Answer. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) acquisition strategy
    includes clear entry and exit criteria for critical milestones to
    ensure that technologies are mature, and required incremental test
    objectives are achieved before obligating funds for production. The
    Department conducts acquisition reviews via Integrating Integrated
    Product Teams and Overarching Integrated Product Teams, which support
    Defense Acquisition Board Reviews. Configuration Steering Boards and
    Service Acquisition Executive reviews are conducted quarterly to assess
    program performance, including test objectives, ensuring associated
    program risks are understood and appropriately mitigated. The JSF
    acquisition strategy provides the most effective balance of technical
    risk, financial resources, and the Services' operational needs.

                            ALTERNATE ENGINE PROGRAM

        Question. The Department had supported the cost-benefit advantages
    of the alternate engine program until this budget submission. What has
    changed leading the Air Force to drop this program? Are you concerned
    about the potential loss of competition in the engine program?
        Answer. During the fiscal year 2007 budget deliberations, the
    Department of Defense considered the investment cost of developing a
    second engine, the maturity of the F-135 primary engine, and the
    findings of past engine assessments. The Department of Defense
    concluded that while there are benefits to having a second engine
    source, a single engine source provides the best balance of risk and
    cost. The Air Force supports this difficult choice and remains
    committed to an F-35 that is lethal, supportable, survivable, and
    affordable.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                              SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

        Question. It would be helpful if you could explain how soon you
    need the Supplemental funds requested for the Global War on Terrorism,
    which were requested in mid-February. Also, could you share with the
    committee what impact there would be from any delay in receipt of the
    requested funds?
        Answer. To date, we have received $2.5 billion in Operations and
    Maintenance Bridge funding to support our day-to-day requirements in
    the Global War on Terrorism. This bridge funding lasted four months and
    we began to cash flow the war from our peacetime program in February
    2006. Any extended delay in receipt of fiscal year 2006 Supplemental
    funding jeopardizes Air Force readiness, taxes our peacetime programs
    to cash flow the war, and further exacerbates what already promises to
    be a challenging year. Without additional fiscal year 2006 Operations
    and Maintenance supplemental funding, we will exhaust currently
    available funding in August 2006.

                           KEESLER TRAINING PIPELINE

        Question. I would like to thank you for your support in helping
    with hurricane recovery efforts to include reestablishing Keesler's
    critical training mission. As I understand it, of the 56 enlisted
    initial skills training ``pipelines,'' 90 percent are now operational.
    Can you please give us an update on the status of Keesler Air Force
    Base?
        Answer. Senator Cochran, it gives us great pleasure to share with
    you the good news concerning the on-going reconstitution endeavors at
    Keesler Air Force Base. The diligent and dedicated efforts of the men
    and women of Air Education and Training Command, 2nd Air Force, and the
    81st Training Wing partnered together to ensure critical training would
    resume in an expedient timeframe at Keesler Air Force Base in the
    aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
        All of the enlisted and officer initial skills taught at Keesler
    Air Force Base are 100 percent fully operational. In addition, 86
    percent (74 of 85) of the additional courses taught at Keesler are
    fully operational. These courses are currently conducted at alternate
    locations; however, they will be returned to Keesler Air Force Base by
    July 2006.
        We are proud of our Airmen who tirelessly reflect the strength,
    tenacity, and dedication necessary to recover our training due to one
    of the worst natural disasters in the history of the United States.
        Thank you and the great citizens of Mississippi for their continued
    support in rebuilding Keesler Air Force Base.

                          JSF COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT

        Question. As I understand it, because of fiscal reasons, the
    Department intends to pursue a sole source contract for the Joint
    Strike Fighter aircraft. Secretary Wynne, it would appear there would
    be far greater benefits, such as improved performance, reduced risk,
    increased readiness, and lower costs, resulting from contract
    competition. As long as there is no delay in fielding the Joint Strike
    Fighter, are you supportive of using a competitive procurement process?
        Answer. There are currently three primary F-35 (JSF) program
    contracts. Lockheed Martin is the sole source provider for the Air
    Vehicle and Air Systems component piece of the aircraft. Pratt and
    Whitney (P&W) F135 and General Electric (GE)/Rolls Royce (RR) Fighter
    Engine Team (FET) F136 are the two contracted engine suppliers.
        During the fiscal year 2007 budget deliberations, the Department of
    Defense considered the investment cost of developing a second engine,
    the maturity of the P&W F135 primary engine, and the findings of past
    engine assessments. The Department of Defense concluded that while
    there are benefits to having a second engine source [F136 alternate
    engine], a single engine source [P&W F135] provides the best balance of
    risk and cost. The Air Force supports the difficult choice to cancel
    the F136 alternate engine and remains committed to an F-35 that is
    lethal, supportable, survivable, and affordable.

                   SPACED-BASED INFRARED SYSTEMS HIGH PROGRAM

        Question. We have been monitoring the progress on the Space-based
    Infrared Systems High program to ensure the Nation maintains its early
    warning capability. I understand the Air Force had to seek
    recertification of the Space-based Infrared Systems program in December
    after the latest Nunn-McCurdy breach for the program. Mr. Secretary,
    what is the status of this program, and when will it be completed?
        Answer. The Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE) certified a
    restructured Space-based Infrared System (SBIRS) program to the
    Congress on December 12, 2005. The restructured program will include
    completion of the development program (two Geosynchronous Earth Orbit
    (GEO) satellites, two Highly Elliptical Orbit payloads, and associated
    ground system) and procurement of one geosynchronous satellite. The
    contract for the procurement satellite shall not be awarded until there
    is confidence in the first developmental GEO satellite. An Acquisition
    Decision Memorandum restructuring the SBIRS program and providing
    specific tasking was signed by the DAE on December 15, 2005.
        GEO payload/spacecraft bus mate is scheduled for July 2007, leading
    to a GEO 1 launch date of October 2008.
        GEO Early On-orbit Test (GEOT) software has made significant
    progress. Prior planning combined the first three software releases
    into a single block, GEOT-C. This software block is being used for the
    initial GEO Systems Integration Tests. When complete, the GEOT-D
    software block will serve as the initial launch baseline. The
    restructured SBIRS program should be completed by fiscal year 2013.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns

                                  500 MISSILES

        Question. The QDR has changed the focus of our strategy toward
    these irregular threats. These are the same threats that caused us to
    re-think our Nuclear Posture in 2002. The Nuclear Posture Review was
    released in the wake of 9/11 when our forces were engaged on the ground
    in Afghanistan. The irregular threats that we face in the war on terror
    had become very real for the American people during the winter of 2001
    and 2002; perhaps many have already forgotten how real those threats
    are. In the face of that changing reality the Nuclear Posture Review
    was a complete change in strategic doctrine. If I might add, the NPR
    was a policy document that was mandated by Congress. That policy
    document did two major things:
      --It reduced the number of operationally deployed nuclear warheads
            from over 6,000 to around 2,000.
      --It expanded the role of nuclear deterrent to consider it as an
            effective countermeasure against the possible use of Weapons of
            Mass Destruction by a rogue state.
      --The Nuclear Posture review both expanded the role of nuclear
            deterrence, and decreased the number of warheads, setting the
            number of ICBMs around 500.
        What has changed since January 2006, to necessitate a further
    reduction in our ICBM force? Am I correct in concluding that this is
    simply a budget decision that is driving strategy?
        Answer. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) allowed us to test our
    assumptions about the continuously changing nature of the world. The
    QDR reevaluated our strategic nuclear force posture and determined that
    with minimal and acceptable risk we can make further modest reductions
    and retire 50 Minuteman IIIs. This represents a 10 percent reduction in
    the size of the Minuteman III force as envisioned by the NPR from 2001.
    The ICBM reduction maintains an effective, balanced nuclear force for
    worldwide deterrence.
        This reduction also provides us with additional test assets to
    ensure the viability of the system for years to come.

                              ICBM FORCE REDUCTION

        Question. Nuclear weapons technology continues to proliferate.
    Right now we are seeing great advances in missile technology in Iran
    and North Korea, and we are seeing a concerted effort to acquire
    nuclear weapons from both of these states which are openly hostile to
    the civilized world.
        Considering this proliferation, why would we consider reducing our
    ICBM fleet further when the NPR numbers were based on ``having the
    smallest nuclear fleet possible?'' In other words, the target set of
    nuclear capable, WMD capable, and rogue states seems to have remained
    constant, so why the change?
        Answer. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) allowed us to test our
    assumptions about the continuously changing nature of the world. The
    QDR reevaluated our strategic nuclear force posture and determined that
    with minimal and acceptable risk we can make further modest reductions
    and retire 50 Minuteman IIIs. This represents a 10 percent reduction in
    the size of the Minuteman III force as envisioned by the NPR from 2001.
    The ICBM reduction maintains an effective, balanced nuclear force for
    worldwide deterrence.

                                   B-52 CUTS

        Question. Another example of questionable budget driven decisions
    is your decision to cut the B-52 fleet in half (from 94 to 56). The B-
    52 has proven itself time and time again as a work horse and a force
    multiplier over the battlefield. With the addition of GPS guided bombs,
    the B-52s over Iraq have become the modern day ``Iowa class
    battleship''. They were able to stay on station for five hours or
    longer, while tactical attack aircraft had less than an hour. They
    carried more than ten times the bomb load of fighters, and provided
    precision strike every bit as good.
        If there is no new long-range strike capability on the drawing
    board until at least 2016, why would you cut the most versatile long-
    range bomber in the fleet without anything on the drawing board any
    time in the near future?
        Answer. The proposed reduction in B-52 aircraft is from the Air
    Force program of record, 76 total aircraft, down to 56 total aircraft
    resulting in a 27 percent reduction. The 94 total aircraft in testimony
    includes the Congressionally-restricted 18 excess attrition reserve
    jets kept in the inventory since 1995.
        The imperatives for transformation, recapitalization and
    modernization levy requirements on the Air Force in excess of available
    resources. The fiscal year 2007 President's budget request successfully
    balances the imperatives of transformation and recapitalization against
    the sustainment and modernization of the legacy Air Force fleet. A
    reduction in the number of B-52H aircraft is possible given the
    enhanced conventional capabilities across the Air Force since 2003. The
    B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers all carry similar satellite-guided
    conventional weapons though each offers unique capabilities. The Air
    Force assessed the operational risk associated with the drawdown and
    concluded the proposed bomber force meets any Combatant Commander
    operational war plan or major contingency operation plan. The
    modernized bomber fleet will be more lethal, responsive and survivable
    as a result of planned investments in advanced weapons, increased
    accuracy, integrated data links, improved connectivity, improved threat
    awareness systems, low observability upgrades and improved electronic
    protection.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

                        ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR

        Question. What assurances can you give us that RNEP is dead? Are
    you aware of plans to re-start the RNEP program at a future date?
        Many, including myself, who fought to eliminate funding for RNEP,
    urged the Administration to consider conventional bunker buster
    alternatives. The fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriations Conference
    report provided $4 million for such a purpose.
        Answer. The Nuclear Weapons Council officially terminated the joint
    Air Force-National Nuclear Security Administration (AF-NNSA) Robust
    Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) Concept Feasibility Study on 25 January
    2006. The Air Force terminated all RNEP-related activities at the start
    of fiscal year 2006. The Air Force has not requested any funding for
    RNEP in the fiscal year 2007 President's budget request and does not
    plan to ask for funding in the future.

                                SLED TEST STATUS

        Question. What is the status of the sled test? I understand the
    sled test will take place at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.
    True? What assurances can you give us that the test is not a back door
    to resume the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study?
        Answer. The Secretary of Defense has elected to have the Defense
    Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) plan and conduct the penetrator sled
    test. Further, the $4 million appropriated in fiscal year 2006 to the
    Air Force for the sled test has been transferred to DTRA for execution.
    The Air Force has not committed any additional funds other than those
    appropriated to the sled test. The Air Force is participating in the
    test planning process at DTRA's request, but has only a limited role.
    Questions concerning penetrator sled test specifics should respectfully
    be addressed to DTRA.

                        SLED TEST ASSISTANCE FROM SANDIA

        Question. In response to December 21, 2005 letter to the Secretary
    of Energy Samuel Bodman expressing concern that the sled test would
    imply continued research on RNEP, Ambassador Linton Brooks of the
    National Nuclear Security Administration responded that no sled test
    would be conducted at Sandia or any other facility. However, he did say
    that ``[i]f DOD chooses to conduct the test at a DOD facility, we
    believe it is fully consistent with the intent of Congress for Sandia
    to provide equipment and technical expertise in support of a DOD study
    of conventional earth penetrators.''
        Has the Air Force requested assistance and technical expertise from
    Sandia? What specifically has been requested? Could any of the
    assistance provided be useful for a nuclear bunker buster study?
        Answer. The Air Force has not requested any assistance or technical
    expertise from the Department of Energy national laboratories. The
    Secretary of Defense has elected to have the Defense Threat Reduction
    Agency (DTRA) plan and conduct the penetrator sled test. The Air Force
    is participating in the test planning process at DTRA's request, but
    has only a limited role. Questions concerning penetrator sled test
    specifics should respectfully be addressed to DTRA.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted to General T. Michael Moseley
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                       PERSONNEL END STRENGTH REDUCTIONS

        Question. General Moseley, in reviewing the Air Force
    transformation efforts, I noticed your proposal to reduce personnel end
    strength by approximately 40,000 over the next five years. General,
    what functions are we giving up with these reductions and are we
    balancing needed capabilities with this transformation?
        Answer. The Air Force is committed to developing and caring for our
    Airmen in order to maintain their competitive advantage in both war and
    peace. We must balance the needs of our current force to fight today's
    wars with the need to prepare our future force to meet the challenges
    of the future. We must transform our Airmen as we transform our force
    structure, organizations, and processes. Through the savings generated
    by transformation, we will recapitalize our force to prepare for the
    future.
        Although we are reducing in number our most valuable resource, we
    are carefully shaping the future force by identifying capabilities our
    force will need in addition to the training and professional
    development our Airmen will need to prevail in any environment. We have
    established Air Force Smart Operations 21, an organization dedicated to
    inculcating, organizing and training our Airmen to identify process
    efficiency improvements in accomplishing their mission. By achieving an
    operating style of continuous improvement in the Air Force--focused on
    our core mission--the Air Force will better prepare for and participate
    in the joint fight, develop, maintain and sustain the warfighter edge,
    prepare motivated and accountable warriors and improve our ability to
    meet the ever-changing demands of the world, our enemies and fiscal
    constraints. This approach has already yielded results across the Air
    Force and will continue well beyond the timeframe of the manpower
    reductions. Although we recognize that much efficiencies may not be
    realized for a few years, the value of installing this approach now
    will yield some early benefits and savings.

               JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT AND MULTINATIONAL OPERATIONS

        Question. General Moseley, I understand the Air Force and the Army
    recently completed the acquisition strategy for the new Joint Cargo
    Aircraft and a joint program office charter, with the Army as the lead
    agency. I commend the Air Force and Army for the cooperative spirit
    exemplified in the Joint Cargo Aircraft program. General, you have
    stated publicly that the Joint Cargo Aircraft would make it easier to
    operate with coalition partners during multinational operations.
    General, can you expound on the reasoning behind this statement and
    also provide this subcommittee with an update on the status of the
    program?
        Answer. The Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) provides valuable niche
    capabilities to nations with advanced Air Forces, and lower cost
    airlift options for nations that cannot afford larger airlift
    platforms. In addition, future JCA security cooperation efforts would
    support the Quadrennial Defense Review objectives of building
    partnership capacity and enabling partners to do more for themselves.
    These airlift capabilities are essential across the range of combat,
    stability, and humanitarian operations.
        The Acquisition Strategy Report has been signed by Under Secretary
    of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and the Request
    for Proposal was released on March 17, 2006. We expect the source
    selection process to be completed and a contract to be awarded in
    January 2007. Additionally, we are drafting a Memorandum of Agreement
    between the Army and Air Force to clarify the roles and
    responsibilities on this joint program. We are also pressing forward on
    establishing a Joint Program Office (JPO). The JPO Charter providing
    guidance for the operation of the JPO should be completed in May and
    the JPO is still scheduled to standup on October 1, 2006.

               JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT PROGRAM ALLIED PARTICIPATION

        Question. General Moseley, will the Joint Cargo Aircraft program
    office explore having U.S. allies join the program in the developmental
    phase--as a number of allies have done with the Joint Strike Fighter
    program?
        Answer. There are no plans to have our allies join the program at
    this time. The Joint Cargo Aircraft is being procured as a non-
    developmental item; therefore, the Army does not envision a
    developmental phase. The Air Force, however, may pursue a small
    developmental period to address any potential mission unique
    requirements after source selection.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns

                            AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CUTS

        Question. Another budget decision that doesn't make sense is your
    decision to cut as many as 57,000 Active, Guard and Reserve Airmen from
    the force. The Air Force posture statement is right on target when it
    states our Airmen are the Air Force's most valuable resource. These
    young men and women are all heroes. They are heroes because they have
    volunteered to serve in a time of war. They have come forward because
    they believe in what this country stands for, and we in the Senate will
    stop at nothing to ensure that their needs are taken care of.
        Pushing these Airmen out of the Service on their return from combat
    deployments just isn't right. Sacrificing you people on the altar of
    future weapons systems is not the way we want our Nation's Armed Forces
    to be managed. This seems to be a budget driven decision that makes
    cuts based on ``efficiencies'' which have yet to be realized.
        How has the Air Force already achieved the efficiency gains
    necessary to allow these cuts?
        Answer. The Air Force is committed to developing and caring for our
    Airmen in order to maintain their competitive advantage in both war and
    peace. We must balance the needs of our current force to fight today's
    war with the need to prepare our future force to meet the challenges of
    the future. We must transform our Airmen as we transform our force
    structure, organizations, and processes. Through the savings generated
    by transformation, we will recapitalize our force to prepare for the
    future.
        Although we are reducing in number our most valuable resource, we
    are carefully shaping the future force by identifying capabilities our
    force will need in addition to the training and professional
    development our Airmen will need to prevail in any environment. We have
    established Air Force Smart Operations 21, an organization dedicated to
    inculcating, organizing and training our Airmen to identify process
    efficiency improvements in accomplishing their mission. By achieving an
    operating style of continuous improvement in the Air Force--focused on
    our core mission--the Air Force will better prepare for and participate
    in the joint fight, develop, maintain and sustain the warfighter edge,
    prepare motivated and accountable warriors and improve our ability to
    meet the ever-changing demands of the world, our enemies and fiscal
    constraints. This approach has already yielded results across the Air
    Force and will continue well beyond the timeframe of the manpower
    reductions. Although we recognize that many efficiencies may not be
    realized for a few years, the value of installing this approach now
    will yield some early benefits and savings.

                               COMPETITOR STATES

        Question. In your posture statement you refer to ``competitor
    states, that are developing air and air defense systems that could
    threaten our ability to maintain Air and Space Dominance.''
        What ``competitor states'' are you talking about that are hostile
    to the foreign policy objectives of the United States?
        As a follow-up: Are you telling us that the United States Air Force
    cannot hold its own with China? Or are you saying that we should be
    prepared to face a military threat from India? If so, why are we
    considering selling top of the line military hardware to India, and why
    are joining then in a landmark nuclear agreement?
        Answer. Specifically, we were referring to China and Russia which
    are developing air and air defense systems that could threaten our
    ability to maintain Air and Space dominance, especially when exported
    to nations of concern. In addition, several nations build advanced
    subcomponents or upgrade older systems to modern standards, increasing
    the capability of so-called legacy weapon systems. Although several of
    these technological competitor states are not hostile to the foreign
    policy objectives of the United States, they often export to nations
    that can threaten American interests or are politically unstable.
        We are not trying to imply that we are unable to hold our own
    against China or any other nation nor are we saying India represents a
    military threat. We used India as an example of a nation that is
    producing advanced fighters, adding to the already sizable fleet across
    the globe.

                                 AGING AIRCRAFT

        Question. You've talked quite a lot about the age of your aircraft,
    and that the average age of your fleet is 23 years. I am concerned that
    in the drive to retire old aircraft we risk short changing our efforts
    to maintain those aircraft for the long term. Last June I sent a letter
    to your office in regard to this effort. I was given a response last
    week. I have three questions that where not answered in a long delayed
    response letter.
        Is the Air Force canceling and delaying Aging Aircraft Structures
    technology programs and if so, why, when the USAF is currently
    grounding aircraft due to excessive cracking and corrosion?
        Answer. The Air Force is not canceling its aging aircraft
    structures technology efforts and is committed to ensuring the
    viability of aircraft weapon systems throughout their life cycles to
    encompass the full spectrum of aging aircraft issues including, but not
    limited to, aircraft structures, wiring, aerospace electronics,
    airborne subsystems, aircraft coatings, depot technologies, etc. The
    Air Force aircraft structural integrity program works to reduce the
    risk of structural failures, while individual inventory assessments by
    the Air Force Fleet Viability Board focus on identifying technical
    issues and the cost of continued ownership.
        Question. Are other weapons systems and avionics upgrade programs
    continuing for aircraft which have had their aging aircraft structures
    programs cut? Why are we modernizing aircraft that are not being
    maintained?
        Answer. While it was necessary for the Air Force to reduce core
    aging aircraft funding to support higher Air Force priorities, the
    shift in focus resulting from this action does put increased emphasis
    on avionics upgrades in an effort to best position our aging aircraft
    fleet to support current Air Force mission objectives. The Air Force
    strives to maximize military utility from our legacy systems, while
    working to better and more efficiently meet warfighter requirements
    through recapitalization and modernization. The Air Force remains
    committed to ensuring the viability of aircraft weapon systems
    throughout their life cycles and continues to invest the resources
    necessary to maintain these aircraft.
        Question. With the clear recognition that corrosion related costs
    are continuing to escalate, why would the Air Force's aging aircraft
    office drop virtually all work in this area?
        Answer. Aging aircraft funding augments ongoing corrosion efforts,
    but is not the primary source of funding for these efforts. While it
    was necessary to reduce core aging aircraft funding to support higher
    Air Force priorities, the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center continues
    to lead the way in corrosion-related efforts for the Air Force.
    Further, as the Air Force has shifted the focus of its aging aircraft
    program to those efforts that will best position its aging aircraft
    fleet to support current Air Force mission objectives, this is not at
    the expense of aircraft structures. The Air Force will continue to
    manage the structural viability of our fleet today and in the future to
    include corrosion-related efforts.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

                         C-17 TRANSPORT--GENERAL ISSUES

        Question. I understand that the C-17 is performing remarkable well
    in Iraq and Afghanistan as a medevac, personnel, and cargo transport.
        Could you describe the current intra-theater utilization rate of
    the C-17 in support of contingency operations?
        Answer. We currently have approximately 20 C-17s supporting U.S.
    Central Command's intra-theater airlift requirement. The intra-theater
    lift supports cargo and passenger movements within the U.S. Central
    Command's area of responsibility (AOR). Over the past three months,
    Mobility Air Forces (MAF) C-17s have flown an average of 2,385 hours
    per month in this role. The C-17 also continues to support U.S. Central
    Command's inter-theater airlift requirements as well, moving passengers
    and cargo between combatant commander AORs. An example of this mission
    is the deployment of an Army unit from Fort Bragg, NC, to an operating
    location in Iraq or Afghanistan. Additionally, MAF C-17s play a
    critical role in the airlift, both intra- and inter-theater, of our
    wounded service men and women from Central Command's AOR to the United
    States. The most recent 3-month average for C-17 flying hours in this
    role is 1,712 hours. All in all, the C-17s have proven to be an
    absolutely critical warfighting resource servicing both inter- and
    intra-theater airlift requirements. As the land forces Concept of
    Operations continue to evolve, we believe the intra-theater airlift
    role of the C-17 will only continue to grow.
        Question. Assuming these rates remain generally consistent over the
    next several years, what affect do you believe attrition could have on
    the Air Force's projected strategic airlift requirements?
        Answer. The C-17 has been accumulating flying hours beyond service
    life projections during the Global War on Terrorism; in other words, we
    have been ``over-consuming'' our C-17 fleet. If these rates continue,
    C-17s will reach the end of their service life more quickly,
    necessitating the need to recapitalize sooner. Any reduction, either by
    use in secondary role or non-availability due to over-consumption,
    results in increased risk as outlined in the Mobility Capabilities
    Study.

               C-17 TRANSPORT AND STRATEGIC AIRLIFT REQUIREMENTS

        Question. Up until November 2005, the Air Force had consistently
    stated its requirement for a total of 222 C-17s, but following a budget
    rescission directive from the Secretary, announced that it would end
    its procurement of C-17s after purchasing just 180, and terminate the
    line after 2008.
        To support the change in its position from a requirement of 222 C-
    17s to 180 C-17s, the Air Force cited an internal Mobility Capabilities
    Study (MCS) that concurred with the view that 180 C-17s could meet the
    Air Force's airlift requirements.
        However, this pre-9/11 commissioned MSC analysis failed to consider
    the increased use of the C-17, particularly intra-theater needs in Iraq
    and Afghanistan. The study also did not take into account the shifting
    of a number of heavy brigade combat teams back to the United States
    from overseas stations, along with the Army's requirements for
    additional aircraft as it transitions to a modular, rapid deploying
    force.
        Could you explain to the Committee why, over a matter of just a few
    months, your airlift requirement changed so dramatically?
        Answer. The MCS study began in the Spring of 2004 and completed its
    analysis in the Summer of 2005 with formal release of the study results
    by the Deputy Defense Secretary in December 2005. The MCS found that
    the current inter-theater airlift program--180 C-17s and 112 modernized
    C-5s--would support DOD war-fighting demands with acceptable risk. The
    Quadrennial Defense Review echoed and supported those findings. ``The
    analysis conducted within the MCS analysis was based on current,
    approved Defense Planning Scenarios and recent (post 9/11) operational
    experience.'' (MCS Executive Summary)
        The MCS study solicited inputs from the Services describing their
    projected force structure and Concepts of Operation for the 2012
    timeframe modeled in the study. The MCS assumptions included the most
    current version (July 2004) of the Integrated Global Presence and
    Basing Strategy position.
        The Air Force program of record reflected in the fiscal year 2007
    President's budget request is 180 C-17s. Although advocates have
    pressed for 222 C-17s, the Air Force has never requested greater than
    180 C-17s in budget submissions. We are, however, reviewing the impact
    of increased C-17 utilization to support the Global War on Terrorism.
    The C-17 has been increasingly used in the intra-theater role in
    Southwest Asia to backfill demobilizing ARC (Air Reserve Component) C-
    130s. This has increased the wear and tear on the C-17 fleet due to
    increased operations in an austere tactical environment and a higher
    than planned use rate. Because of this, the Air Force's number one
    unfunded priority list item is National Defense Airlift Fund Capability
    Upgrades to reset forces due to combat losses and increased
    utilization. This item includes a request for 7 additional C-17s to
    maintain capacity as C-17s are used up in the Global War on Terrorism.
    Additionally, the impact of the recent C-5 mishap is being reviewed,
    although no determination has been made yet on how to replace the lost
    capacity.
        Question. As you know, General Handy--the U.S. TRANSCOM Combatant
    Commander until mid-2005--repeatedly and publicly stated that a minimum
    of 42 additional C-17s were necessary to meet the Air Force's mobility
    needs.
        Outside of the findings of the Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS)--a
    study that many believe fails to consider a number of critical factors
    related to airlift requirements post-9/11--what evidence do you have
    that 180 C-17s will be sufficient to meet our military's future airlift
    requirements?
        Answer. The MCS study released in December 2005 by the Deputy
    Secretary of Defense is the most authoritative and current document
    describing our mobility capabilities. The MCS looked at the full range
    of the Defense Strategy to determine the demands placed on the defense
    mobility system to include the strategic airlift fleet. The study
    analyzed the 2012 force structures and Concepts of Operation provided
    by each of the Services and completed a detailed look at future
    mobility requirements.
        The MCS concluded that the programmed fleet of 292 strategic
    airlift aircraft (180 C-17s and 112 modernized C-5s) provided a
    capability sufficient to meet the warfighting demands of the defense
    strategy with acceptable risk. While recognizing the programmed fleet
    as sufficient, it caveated this finding by identifying the need for
    continued investment in the mobility system, in line with current
    priorities, in order to maintain that sufficiency.
        The C-17 has been increasingly used in the intra-theater role in
    Southwest Asia to backfill demobilizing Air Reserve Component C-130s.
    This has increased the wear and tear on the C-17 fleet due to increased
    operations in an austere tactical environment and a higher than planned
    use rate. Because of this, the Air Force's number one Unfunded Priority
    List item is National Defense Airlift Fund Capability Upgrades to reset
    forces due to combat losses and increased utilization. This item
    includes a request for 7 additional C-17s to maintain capacity.
    Additionally, the impact of the recent C-5 mishap is being reviewed,
    although no determination has been made yet on how to replace the lost
    capacity.
        Question. Based on what you know today--considering the changes
    over the past few years in operational requirements and airlift
    missions--are you able to confidently tell the Committee that the
    Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS) projections will adequately meet our
    military's airlift requirements for the so-called ``long war.''
        Answer. The MCS looked at the full range of the Defense Strategy to
    determine the demands placed on the entire defense mobility system to
    include our airlift fleet. The study analyzed the 2012 force structures
    and Concepts of Operation provided by each of the Services. This
    methodology provided an analysis of capabilities required out to 2012
    using the approved Defense Planning Scenarios for that timeframe.
        The study was completed with the participation of all of the
    Services, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense and provides the most complete assessment of future mobility
    requirements currently available to Department of Defense decision
    makers.
        The MCS concluded that the programmed fleet of 292 strategic
    airlift aircraft (180 C-17s and 112 modernized C-5s) provided a
    capability sufficient to meet the warfighting demands of the defense
    strategy with acceptable risk. The study considered the impact of
    current operations and a protracted Global War on Terrorism campaign
    along with other issues affecting demands on the mobility system in
    determining its findings. While recognizing the programmed fleet as
    sufficient, it caveated this finding by identifying the need for
    continued investment in the mobility system, in line with current
    priorities, in order to maintain that sufficiency.
        The C-17 has been increasingly used in the intra-theater role in
    Southwest Asia to backfill demobilizing Air Reserve Component C-130s.
    This has increased the wear and tear on the C-17 fleet due to increased
    operations in an austere tactical environment and a higher than planned
    use rate. Because of this, the Air Force's number one Unfunded Priority
    List item is National Defense Airlift Fund Capability Upgrades to reset
    forces due to combat losses and increased utilization. This item
    includes a request for seven additional C-17s to maintain capability.
    Additionally, the impact of the recent C-5 mishap is being reviewed
    although no determination has been made yet on how to replace the lost
    capacity.
        Question. The Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS) validated a program
    of record to procure 180 C-17s. However, the MCS assumed that 112 of
    the older C-5 transports would remain in the fleet, due to
    Congressional restrictions barring the retirement of those aircraft.
        If Congress eased the retirement restrictions placed on the 112 C-
    5s, how might you manage the strategic airlift fleet differently?
        Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) is committed through the
    Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) to modernize the C-5 fleet and
    complete the C-17 multiyear contract. The QDR, informed by the MCS,
    confirmed the current inter-theater airlift program--180 C-17s and 112
    modernized C-5s--will support DOD warfighting demands with acceptable
    risk. A fleet of 180 C-17s and 112 modernized C-5s provides lowest life
    cycle cost (LCC) through 2025 to maintain same total airlift capacity.
    For example, there is a $28 billion LCC increase if the C-5As are
    retired and the capacity replaced with C-17s. C-5 modernization is also
    more cost effective than purchasing additional C-17s to achieve same
    capability--and it pays for itself by 2029. Even with the recent C-5
    flight mishap, a modernized C-5 fleet of 111 aircraft enables the Air
    Force to leverage the full range of both inter-theater airlifters to
    support the Combatant Commanders.
        Question. Additionally, to what extent are you concerned about the
    estimated two-year gap between the proposed termination of the C-17
    line, and the completion of the C-5 modernization program?
        Answer. The C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program,
    whose reliability improvements are predominately based on a commercial
    engine (CF6) with a well-established track record, is considered to be
    a low technical risk program. We have relatively high confidence that
    it will meet our expectations for overall reliability improvements.
        Question. What if the C-5 modernization program is unsuccessful and
    you've already proceeded with closing the C-17 line? What would the Air
    Force do at that point?
        Answer. Based on low technical risk associated with the C-5
    Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program, we expect the
    modernization program to succeed.
        Question. Doesn't it make the most sense to preserve the C-17 line
    until you can unequivocally confirm that upgrading the C-5 is a viable
    option?
        Answer. Keeping the C-17 line open until C-5 modernization
    improvements are unequivocally confirmed would be an expensive option.
    Given the low technical risk associated with C-5 Reliability
    Enhancement and Re-Engining Program, the Air Force is applying our
    limited resources to higher priority recapitalization efforts,
    including replacing an aging tanker fleet.

                        C-17 TRANSPORT AND ARMY MOBILITY

        Question. Reports suggest that the Mobility Capabilities Study
    (MCS)--which was supposed to provide the Pentagon an accurate
    projection of future strategic airlift requirements--neither takes into
    account (1) the Army's transition to a modular brigade force structure
    nor (2) the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.
        Consequently it is my understanding that the Pentagon has
    commissioned a new study (MCS-06) to address these and other areas that
    the previous MCS study failed to consider in regard to the military's
    future air mobility needs.
        With this being the case, has the Army ever articulated to you or
    provided some estimate of the airlift requirements that will be
    connected to the mobilization of the 15 FCS brigade combat teams?
        Answer. The U.S. Army will be able to provide the Air Force a
    realistic projection of its future airlift requirements when the Future
    Combat System program is more mature. Both the Air Force and the Army
    are engaged in a series of functional analysis studies that may help
    provide additional insight into the airlift requirements of the Army's
    brigade-centric force.
        Question. If not, when do you anticipate that the Army will be able
    to provide the Air Force a Realistic projection of its airlift
    requirements based on its transition from a division-centric to
    brigade-centric force?
        Answer. The U.S. Army will be able to provide the Air Force a
    realistic projection of its future airlift requirements when the Future
    Combat System program is more mature. Both the Air Force and the Army
    are engaged in a series of functional analysis studies that may help
    provide additional insight into the airlift requirements of the Army's
    brigade-centric force.
        Question. To the best of your knowledge, do you believe that the
    Army's transformation efforts centered around the Future Combat System
    brigade combat teams will increase the need for flexible and versatile
    cargo aircraft like the C-17, which according to the Army's own
    projections, has the capacity to transport 3 of its next-generation
    tactical ground vehicles?
        Answer. There will be an increased requirement for more flexible
    and versatile cargo aircraft if the U.S. Army transformation employs
    the Future Combat Systems (FCS) Brigade Combat Teams using their
    ``vertical maneuver'' concept. The Army concept of ``vertical
    maneuver'' is essentially the operational and tactical movement of
    multiple FCS manned ground vehicle units by air to unimproved locations
    where they can immediately fight. A possible solution would be use of
    C-17s or the Advanced Mobility Capability Concept.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Stevens. And then, our next hearing will be a
    closed session, in our closed session room, S-407, to discuss
    the budget request for intelligence, on April 5.
        And the subcommittee will stand recessed until that time.
    Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., Wednesday, April 29, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Stevens, Domenici, Bond, Burns, Inouye,
    Leahy, Mikulski, and Dorgan.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                                 National Guard

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL H STEVEN BLUM, CHIEF,
                NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Good morning and welcome to all of you.
    Sorry to be a little late. We want to welcome you to today's
    hearing on National Guard and Reserve programs. There are two
    panels scheduled today. First we want to hear from the National
    Guard leadership and then from the leaders of the four Reserve
    forces.
        This first panel consists of: Lieutenant General Steven
    Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau; Lieutenant General
    Clyde Vaughn, Director of the Army National Guard; and Major
    General Charles Ickes, Acting Director of the Air National
    Guard. We thank you very much for coming, for your service, and
    we do welcome General Vaughn and General Ickes to their first
    hearing before this subcommittee. We are pleased to have you
    here.
        We know that in the past year Guard and Reserves have
    continued to provide support for their active duty forces
    overseas. The total force is a reality now, there is no
    question about it. In addition to augmenting the military
    effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Reserves have also stepped
    up to meet challenges such as securing our homeland, responding
    to national disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. You had
    several sizable missions to fulfill and have accomplished all
    of them with a great deal of success, and we thank all of your
    citizen-soldiers for their dedication and sacrifices at home
    and abroad.
        We want to hear about several challenges we are told that
    face our Guard and Reserves, including the continued
    deployments, modernization of equipment, and recruiting and
    retention of personnel. We would like to have you discuss the
    future plans to remain relevant and ready to support our total
    domestic security. We look forward to hearing from each of you
    how the fiscal year 2007 budget request will help you address
    these issues.
        Let me yield to my good friend, the co-chairman from
    Hawaii, Senator Inouye.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    would like to join you in welcoming our witnesses.
        The utilization and dependency on our Reserve and Guard
    forces have changed dramatically. Now you are all over the
    world. There is an unprecedented demand for the Reserves. Today
    your forces are spread around the globe and serving here at
    home by the thousands. As this subcommittee has noted in past
    hearings, your troops have responded magnificently. The
    integration of Reserve forces by combatant commanders in
    Afghanistan and Iraq have been seamless. The bravery is
    impressive.
        Again, we congratulate you for having your forces prepared
    for the challenges they are now facing. But as I say this, I
    know that the challenges facing us are many and growing. For
    example, many States are concerned about the plans the Army has
    to reorganize several Guard units. We are aware of the concerns
    that our returning reservists may have difficulty being
    retained. We know about your shortfalls of equipment for those
    returning from service overseas. We understand that some
    Reserve units have been called to deploy overseas more than
    once since 9/11, straining relationships with employers and
    their families.
        So today we are here to hear your recommendations, to
    ensure that our Guard and Reserve forces remain strong and
    ready to meet the future.
        So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Burns.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

        Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank the distinguished folks who are at the
    table this morning. I want to say on these past couple of weeks
    I had an opportunity to meet a group of young men from Nellis
    Air Force Base in Montana. They are rescue and recovery people,
    training in a rough topography and weather conditions, and they
    had them both up there, I think. And now, after a couple of
    weeks in Montana, why, they said, well, as tough as it was, we
    are reluctant to go back to Nellis. They just want to stay in
    Montana.
        But I thank you for coming this morning on something that
    is very dear to all of our hearts, because not only of the
    obligations that some of you have in our respective States, but
    also had it not been for your troops in recent operations I
    think we would have been hard-pressed to really complete a
    mission. So I appreciate that. You have proven yourselves to be
    flexible. We have tried as Congress to put the infrastructure
    in place that would facilitate not only your recruiting but
    also your training and the morale of the troops, because, as
    you know, most are citizen-soldiers and have obligations to
    their communities and to their families and do this out of
    their real deep commitment to the security of this country. I
    commend you on that and your leadership.
        We are here now--I think a couple of primary concerns is
    ensuring that you have the funding to reset the force now,
    because we have been deployed around the world, as Senator
    Inouye indicated, now to revitalize not only from a human
    resource but also our equipment and our ability to train and to
    bring new people into our force. We are making sure that the
    funding is not shortchanged with the area of your concerns,
    that we maintain that ability to be ready when called, and also
    taking care of these great Americans, their families and their
    support system that really makes us a different kind of a
    society, so to speak.
        So I commend you on your leadership. Also, how do we deal
    with employers who all at once look down the line one day and
    they have some holes in their own operation at home, and when
    the troops come home do they have jobs and do they have the
    support system that puts them back into society before it was
    disrupted? Not that their level of patriotism has lowered any,
    but they have other obligations also, and we want to make sure
    that those support services are there.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to their
    testimony.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Mikulski.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        To the people at the head table, a very enthusiastic
    welcome. General Blum, it is great to see you again. They
    really enjoyed your speech at the University of Baltimore
    graduation, where you were inspirational, motivational, and
    really admired, and my family certainly enjoyed meeting you
    that day.
        I think that is characteristic here. You know, your job is
    to inspire and to motivate the Guards and our job is to make
    sure you have the right resources to do that.
        I just wanted to say very briefly, number one, thank you
    and please thank every single soldier, Air Force member of the
    National Guard that you represent. They really are appreciated,
    and we are going to show that appreciation today, not with
    words but with deeds.
        We want to hear what are the resources that are needed to
    support the Guard in their current mission and operations.
    Number two, what can we do to retain the best of the best in
    terms of whether it is family support, employer support, et
    cetera? Number three, how do we recruit new members of the
    National Guard, because they see that what it takes to be a
    citizen-soldier is a significant commitment of time, duty, and
    even personal expense.
        So thank you and God bless you for what you do and many
    thanks to all those who serve.
        General Blum. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Stevens. Are you finished, Senator?
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Bond.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Lieutenant General Blum, Lieutenant General Vaughn, Major
    General Ickes, welcome back to the subcommittee. Thank you very
    much for the service. The Guard as participants in the first
    gulf war, responders to 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, service in
    Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, just to name a few,
    provided tremendous service to this country.
        I have been around a while working with Guard issues. In
    1991 I led a charge to preserve Guard units, including 3,100
    guardsmen in Missouri and more than 100,000 across the Nation,
    who were proposed for cuts by the Pentagon. In 2001 the Air
    Force eliminated the B-1 mission from the Air National Guard.
    During the 2005 base realignment and closure (BRAC) process we
    learned from testimony of adjutants general that the Air
    National Guard was not substantively involved and as a result
    they made one of the worst decisions I have seen, to shut down
    the 131st Fighter Wing with the F-15s at St. Louis, providing
    homeland security protection in the most efficient force, F-15
    force, in the air assets.
        Earlier this year, we heard proposals coming out of the
    Pentagon to reduce end strength of the Army Guard by 17,000 and
    14,000 from the Air Guard. We sent a little letter with 75 or
    80 signatures that got some rethinking of it.
        But on issue after issue, the Guard has had to rely on
    Congress, not its total force partners in the active duty, to
    equip and provide fully the resources and benefits it needs,
    not only to support our active duty warfighters in the away
    game as they serve right alongside with those men and women on
    active duty, but also to fulfil the Guard's paramount home game
    mission of defending the homeland and providing support to
    civil authorities.
        Why? It is obvious that the Guard is not provided with the
    bureaucratic muscle commensurate with its contributions to the
    total force. That is why Senator Leahy and I, who are co-chairs
    of the Senate National Guard Caucus, are introducing
    legislation today aimed at redressing the uphill battles the
    Guard must fight every year to ensure full training, equipping,
    and readiness to meet the missions.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a very long-winded statement that I
    will submit for the record, but I will spare you that and just
    wait for the questions. I thank the chair.
        Senator Stevens. We thank you for your generosity, Senator.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Christopher S. Bond

        Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Lieutenant General Blum, Lt. General Vaughn and Major
    General Ickes (pronounced like ick-iss) welcome back to this
    committee and thank you first and foremost for your service to
    our nation.
        As participants in the first Gulf War, responders to 9/11
    and Hurricane Katrina, service in Operation Iraqi and Enduring
    Freedom, just to name a few operations, all of us are familiar
    with the tremendous service the National Guard has rendered to
    our Nation and the 50 states and four protectorates.
        In 1991, I lead a charge to preserve National Guard Units,
    including 3,100 guardsmen in Missouri and more than 100,000
    across the nation, from proposed cuts by the Pentagon. In 2001,
    the Air Force eliminated the B-1 mission from the Air National
    Guard, consolidating units into the active duty. During the
    2005 BRAC process, we learned and heard testimony from Adjutant
    Generals from numerous states that the Air National Guard was
    not substantively involved in that process or in the
    formulation of the Future Total Force initiative.
        Earlier this year, DOD, the Army and the Air Force proposed
    to reduce end-strength by 17,000 and 14,000 respectively and
    again, Congress had to step in and prevent such cuts. This
    decision, in addition to the aforementioned ones and the litany
    of others that I have not mentioned, was made without the
    substantive input from National Guard leaders.
        Year after year, issue after issue, the National Guard has
    had to rely on the Congress--not its total force partners in
    the Active duty--to equip and provide fully the resources and
    benefits it needs--not only to support our active duty
    warfighters in the away game as they serve right alongside with
    our brave men and women in the active duty, but to also fulfill
    the Guard's paramount home-game mission of defending the
    homeland and providing support to civil authorities.
        Why? Well, it is obvious to me that the National Guard is
    not provided with the bureaucratic muscle commensurate with its
    contributions to the total force. Senator Pat Leahy and I as
    co-Chairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus are introducing
    legislation today aimed at redressing these uphill battles that
    the Guard must fight every year to ensure they are trained,
    equipped and ready to meet their missions.
        Hurricane Katrina was one of the worst natural disasters in
    our nation's history.
        Our nation was reminded during the response to Hurricane
    Katrina of the Guard's other paramount mission: homeland
    defense and civil support. The National Guard's contributions
    to Hurricane Katrina were stellar.
        The magnitude, quality, and timeliness of the Guard's
    response remains one of the less publicized successes of the
    Katrina disaster.
        The Guard's successful response was attributable to the
    fact that the Guard is best organized and trained to initiate
    and coordinate a civil responses on the scale of Katrina.
        With equipment availability levels currently at a perilous
    35 percent, just think of the capability a fully equipped
    National Guard could provide a Governor and localities in the
    event of another terrorist attack or natural disaster.
        This is why I lead the charge along with my co-chair of the
    Senate National Guard Caucus Sen. Patrick Leahy, to provide
    over $900 million in last year's Defense Appropriations Bill
    for the shortages in equipment the Guard is experiencing.
        Time and time again the National Guard has been a
    tremendous value for the capabilities it provides our nation,
    providing 40 percent of the Total Force for around 7-8 percent
    of the budget.
        Now more than ever, as budgets are constrained and
    entitlements continue to grow at alarming rates, we should not
    be looking to reduce the Guard, but rather fully man and fully
    equip it.
        The growing significance of the operational role of the
    National Guard in matters of national security and homeland
    defense and homeland security, beyond that strictly deriving
    from its role as a reserve component of the Army and the Air
    Force, demands that the position of the Chief of the National
    Guard Bureau be raised to an authorized grade of General.
        It is a fundamental practice within the Pentagon that the
    most strategic decisions are made at the Secretarial level with
    the advice of the four-star Service Chiefs, the four-star
    Combatant Commanders and the other four-stars within the active
    duty force. The legislation introduced by Sen. Leahy and I will
    ensure that the vital interests of the National Guard which
    impacts military readiness, support to civilian authorities
    within the fifty states and four protectorates, and the 450,000
    civilian-soldiers and airmen, will be adequately represented.

        Senator Stevens. General Blum, we would be happy to have
    your statement. All your statements will appear in the record
    in full as though read, but we want to hear what you want us to
    hear.

                       OPENING STATEMENT OF GENERAL BLUM

        General Blum. Well, thank you, Chairman Stevens, Senator
    Inouye, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank
    you for the opportunity to appear today and discuss the
    National Guard's budget submission for fiscal year 2007. I am
    proud to be here today with General Vaughn, the Director of the
    Army National Guard, and Major General Chuck Ickes, who is the
    Acting Director of the Air National Guard. Each of you--we will
    all discuss the funding issues that you asked us about, so you
    can better understand what we need to deliver the capabilities
    that you have so well articulated, so well that I am going to
    dispense with most of my opening statement because, frankly,
    you have delivered it for me, which is even better because it
    means you completely understand the issues and you understand
    the challenges that the National Guard is facing as we move
    from a strategic reserve to an operational force.
        I would be remiss, however, if I did not speak for the
    460,000 citizen-soldiers and citizen-airmen and express their
    appreciation to this subcommittee for the magnificent support
    that you have displayed for us, particularly in this last year.
    You helped us take care of personnel, training, and equipment
    needs in a very, very measured and effective manner. In fact,
    the robust appropriations of this particular subcommittee to
    the National Guard and Reserve account helped us purchase
    needed capabilities that we will probably use, unfortunately,
    very soon here in our country in the upcoming hurricane season,
    so that we are even more prepared than we were last year, when
    we responded with 80,000 soldiers deployed overseas and at the
    same time generated 50,000 citizen-soldiers from every State
    and every territory in this great Nation to Louisiana and
    Mississippi to help out in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina,
    Rita, and Wilma.
        The National Guard, as you have mentioned, is entering a
    new era in our Nation's history and it must adapt to these new
    challenges. To keep this type of force as effective as you have
    described and as important and as essential to the Department
    of Defense as the National Guard has become, we must ensure
    that the National Guard receives adequate funds and equipment
    to do the job.
        The National Guard is absolutely proud to serve and deliver
    the strong military capabilities both here at home and abroad
    in a most cost-effective manner. The funds that you appropriate
    I assure you will be well spent and highly leveraged both here
    at home in domestic operations as well as overseas in the
    global war on terrorism.
        When a guardsman is not mobilized, the Government does not
    incur any of the expenses that we routinely pay for our active
    duty force. We have an on-call capability for a fraction of the
    cost. For those of you that do not know it, the National Guard
    is and remains unique in the Department of Defense. It is the
    only uniformed force that can be called upon by the Governors
    of our Nation on a day-to-day basis. It is clearly the American
    taxpayers' best defense bargain.
        The Army National Guard is only on a normal day 12 percent
    of the Army's budget and it provides 32 percent of the Army's
    overall capabilities. It presently is providing about 40
    percent of the Army deployed on the ground fighting today in
    Iraq and Afghanistan. The Air National Guard only on a normal
    day gets 8 percent of the Air Force's budget and provides 34
    percent of the total Air Force's capability.
        There is an added benefit of the National Guard where the
    Federal and the State dual use dividend pays huge, huge
    dividends every day in every zip code of our Nation. There has
    never been a day in my tenure as the Chief of the National
    Guard Bureau for the last 3 years where national guardsmen were
    not called out by their Governors to either help save lives, or
    help prevent suffering, or help restore order, or help bring
    aid and assistance that the local and state governments were
    unable to do, and had to leverage the military capabilities of
    the Department of Defense.
        Before I thank you and finish my comment, I would like to
    introduce three American heroes. One is Command Sergeant Major
    John Leonard. Sergeant Leonard, please stand. This soldier will
    be completing 41 years in uniform next month and he will
    finally retire because he reaches the mandatory retirement age.
    That is the only reason that he is leaving. Otherwise he would
    stay probably for another 20.
        He served in three wars. He has been a national guardsmen,
    he has been a marine. He has been mobilized three times. He
    represents every citizen-soldier and citizen-airman in this
    great Nation, he has been my enlisted advisor for the last 3
    years, and he will be a huge loss. This Nation owes a great
    debt of gratitude to citizen-soldiers like John Leonard.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Sergeant, if you would like to have a waiver on that, look
    us up.
        General Blum. You can think about that, John.
        Command Sergeant Major Leonard leaves feeling pretty good,
    because there are two other soldiers, a soldier and airman, a
    citizen-soldier and an airman, here that I would like to
    introduce at this time. I have Specialist Mike Acquaviva from
    the United States Army National Guard. He comes out of the
    State of Alabama. He has been--he was prior service Air Force
    and he joined the National Guard 3 years ago. He is a heavy
    equipment operator in Alabama for Cullman County.
        He was mobilized for Iraq. He spent 18 months on active
    duty through the mobilization process, 1 year boots on the
    ground. He's a signal soldier, so he went over there to provide
    communications to the coalition forces, the State Department,
    Special Operations Forces, and some of our multinational
    partners in Iraq up in the area of Kirkuk.
        He was wearing a lot of battle armor and equipment and
    ammunition for several months that he thought he did not need
    because he thought he was there to be a radio operator, until
    he woke up one morning in Kirkuk and found 1,800 insurgents
    from one of the militias attacking and trying to overrun his
    position.
        Specialist Fourth Class Mike Acquaviva, although he is
    married, although he has a 14-year-old daughter, and although
    he is a signal soldier, climbed to the roof of a building,
    employed a squad automatic weapon, and was instrumental in the
    defeat of this attack. A captain fighting right beside him was
    hit with a sniper round through the arm, through his chest, and
    out his back. Specialist Acquaviva stopped what he was doing,
    rendered first aid, and saved the life of that captain, and
    then went back to firing his weapon for the next 9 hours
    continuous combat, until he ran out of ammunition, and then
    picked up the weapon of the wounded captain until all of his
    ammunition was expended.
        For his heroic deeds, he was awarded the Bronze Star with a
    V Device. We are extremely proud of this individual and he will
    be awarded the Combat Action Badge before he leaves Washington,
    because his actions have earned that. You will get that award
    before you leave town. Mike Acquaviva, American hero from
    Alabama Guard.
        Also, Staff Sergeant Carl Gurmsheid is from the Arizona
    National Guard. The reason that I have selected to bring him is
    that he has done every mission in the National Guard and has
    participated in the last 4 years. He was working in the Arizona
    National Guard as an engineer, a firefighter. He has shown his
    flexibility to retrain three times in the last 4 years to do
    what this Nation needed him to do. He worked in the
    counternarcotics, counterterrorism piece. He responded in
    Operation Noble Eagle right after 9/11, and ultimately he has
    just come back from his tour of combat in Iraq.
        So at home, overseas, civilian support to law enforcement,
    whatever the Guard does day to day, this is the kind of
    involvement that Carl Gurmsheid has been willing to stand up
    and do whatever his State or Nation needed him to do when they
    needed him to do it.
        He is also married. His wife Melissa and he have two
    children, Grace, 5, and Jacob, 3. The necessity to address not
    only the soldiers but their families is a priority at keeping
    the readiness of the force at combat level the next time we
    need them.
        So I am pleased to be the chief of 460,000 young men and
    women like I introduced to you here today.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you. I would be interested to answer any questions
    you may have. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Does that complete your statement,
    General?
        General Blum. Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General H Steven Blum

                                  IN MEMORIAM

        A special dedication to the men and women of the Army and the Air
    National Guard who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving the United
    States of America.
         america's 21st century minutemen--always ready, always there!
        National Guard Soldiers and Airmen lost during the attacks on 9/11,
    Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
    Freedom as of January 1, 2006
    PVT Algernon Adams, SC
    SGT Leonard Wade Adams, NC
    SPC Segun F. Akintade, NY
    SPC Azhar Ali, NY
    SGT Howard Paul Allen, AZ
    1LT Louis E. Allen, NY
    SSG William Alvin Allers III, KY
    SFC Victor Antonio Anderson, GA
    SPC Michael Andrade, RI
    SGT Travis Mark Arndt, MT
    SSG Daniel Laverne Arnold, PA
    SSG Larry Richard Arnold, MS
    SGT Christopher James Babin, LA
    SSG Nathan J. Bailey, TN
    SPC Ronald W. Baker, AR
    SGT Sherwood R. Baker, PA
    1LT Gerald Baptiste, NY
    SGT Michael C. Barkey, OH
    1LT Christopher W. Barnett, LA
    SPC Bryan Edward Barron, MS
    SGT Michael Barry, MO
    SPC Todd M. Bates, OH
    SGT Tane Travis Baum, OR
    SPC Alan Bean Jr., VT
    SGT Bobby E. Beasley, VA
    CPL Joseph Otto Behnke, NY
    SGT Aubrey D. Bell, AL
    SPC Bradley John Bergeron, LA
    SSG Sean B. Berry, TX
    SSG Harold D. Best, NC
    SGT Dennis J. Boles, FL
    SFC Craig A. Boling, IN
    SSG Jerry L. Bonifacio Jr, CA
    COL Canfield ``Bud'' Boone, IN
    PFC Samuel R. Bowen, OH
    SGT Larry Bowman, NY
    SSG Hesley Box, Jr., AR
    SSG Stacey C. Brandon, AR
    SPC Kyle A. Brinlee, OK
    SSG Cory W. Brooks, SD
    PFC Nathan P. Brown, NY
    PFC Oliver J. Brown, PA
    SPC Philip D. Brown, ND
    SPC Jacques Earl Brunson, GA
    PFC Paul J. Bueche, AL
    CPL Jimmy Dale Buie, AR
    SPC Alan J. Burgess, NH
    SPC Casey Byers, IA
    SGT Charles T. Caldwell, RI
    SSG Joseph Camara, RI
    SGT Deyson Ken Cariaga, HI
    SPC Jocelyn L. Carrasquillo, NC
    SGT James Dustin Carroll, TN
    SGT Frank T. Carvill, NJ
    SFC Virgil Ray Case, ID
    CAPT Christopher S. Cash, NC
    SPC Jessica L. Cawvey, Il
    SPC James A. Chance III, MS
    SSG William D. Chaney, IL
    MSG Chris Shayne Chapin, VT
    SSG Craig W. Cherry, VA
    SPC Don A. Clary, KS
    MSG Herbert R. Claunch, AL
    SPC Brian Clemens, IN
    SGT Russell L. Collier, AR
    SFC Kurt Joseph Comeaux, LA
    SPC Anthony Steven Cometa, NV
    SFC Sean M. Cooley, MS
    SSG Travis Sentell Cooper, MS
    SGT Alex J. Cox, TX
    SPC Carl F Curran, PA
    SPC Daryl Anthony Davis, FL
    SSG Kevin Dewayne Davis, OR
    SPC Raphael S. Davis, MS
    SSG David Fredrick Day, MN
    SGT Felix M. Del Greco, CT
    SPC Daryl T. Dent, DC
    SPC Daniel A. Desens, NC
    PFC Nathaniel Edward Detample, PA
    SPC Joshua Paul Dingler, GA
    SPC Ryan E. Doltz, NJ
    1LT Mark Harold Dooley, VT
    SPC Thomas John Dostie, ME
    SSG George Ray Draughn Jr., GA
    SPC Christopher M. Duffy, NJ
    SGT Arnold Duplantier,II, CA
    SSG Mark Oscar Edwards, TN
    SGT Michael Egan, PA
    SGT Christian Philip Engeldrum, NY
    CPT Phillip T. Esposito, NY
    SPC William Lee Evans , PA
    SPC Michael Scott Evans II, LA
    SSG Christopher Lee Everett, TX
    SGT Justin L. Eyerly, OR
    SPC Huey P. Long Fassbender, LA
    CPT Arthur L. Felder, AR
    SGT Robin Vincent Fell, LA
    SPC William Valentin Fernandez, PA
    SPC Jon P. Fettig, ND
    SGT Damien Thai Ficek, WA
    SGT Jeremy J. Fischer, NE
    CPT Michael Todd Fiscus, IN
    SPC David Michael Fisher, NY
    SGT Paul F. Fisher, IA
    CW2 John Michael Flynn, NV
    SSG Tommy I. Folks, Jr., TX
    SPC Craig S. Frank, MI
    SSG Bobby C. Franklin, NC
    SSG Jacob Frazier, IL
    SPC Carrie Lee French, ID
    SPC Armand L. Frickey, LA
    SSG Carl Ray Fuller, GA
    SGT Jerry Lewis Ganey Jr., GA
    SGT Seth Kristian Garceau, IA
    SPC Tomas Garces, TX
    SGT Landis W. Garrison, IL
    SGT Christopher Geiger, PA
    SPC Christopher D. Gelineau, ME
    SPC Mathew Vincent Gibbs, GA
    2LT Richard Brian Gienau, IA
    SSG Charles Crum Gillican III, GA
    SPC Lee Myles Godbolt, LA
    SPC Richard A. Goward, MI
    SSG Shawn Alexander Graham, TX
    SGT Jamie A. Gray, VT
    SPC James T Grijalva, IL
    SGT Jonathon C Haggin, GA
    SFC Peter James Hahn, LA
    SSG Asbury Fred Hawn II, TN
    SPC Michael Ray Hayes, KY
    SPC Paul Martin Heltzel, LA
    SPC Kyle Matthew Hemauer, VA
    1LT Robert L. Henderson II, KY
    SSG Kenneth Hendrickson, ND
    SPC Brett Michael Hershey, IN
    MSG Michael Thomas Hiester, IN
    SGT Stephen Correll High, SC
    SGT Jeremy M. Hodge, OH
    SFC Robert Lee Hollar Jr., GA
    SPC James J. Holmes, ND
    SPC Jeremiah J. Holmes, NH
    SGT Manny Hornedo, NY
    SGT Jessica Marie Housby, IL
    SPC Robert William Hoyt, CT
    SPC Jonathan Adam Hughes, KY
    SGT Joseph Daniel Hunt, TN
    SSG Henry E. Irizarry, NY
    SPC Benjamin W. Isenberg, OR
    SFC Tricia Lynn Jameson, NE
    SGT Brahim Jamal Jeffcoat, PA
    SPC William Jeffries, IN
    SPC David W. Johnson, OR
    SSG David Randall Jones, GA
    SFC Michael Dean Jones, ME
    SGT Anthony Nelson Kalladeen, NY
    SPC Alain Louis Kamolvathin, NY
    SPC Mark J. Kasecky, PA
    SPC Charles Anthony Kaufman, WI
    SPC James C. Kearney, IA
    SGT Michael Jason Kelley, MA
    SSG Stephen Curtis Kennedy, TN
    SSG Ricky Allan Kieffer, MI
    SGT James Ondra Kinlow, GA
    PFC David M. Kirchoff, IA
    SGT Timothy C. Kiser, CA
    SGT Floyd G. Knighten Jr., LA
    SPC Joshua L. Knowles, IA
    SSG Lance J. Koenig, ND
    CW3 Patrick W. Kordsmeier, AR
    SPC Kurt Eric Krout, PA
    SPC John Kulick, PA
    SFC William W. Labadie Jr., AR
    SGT Joshua S. Ladd, MS
    SPC Charles R. Lamb, II
    CW4 Patrick Daniel Leach, SC
    SGT Terrance Delan Lee, Sr., MS
    PFC Ken W. Leisten, OR
    SSG Jerome Lemon, SC
    SPC Tiothy J. Lewis, DC
    SGT Jesse Marvin Lhotka, MN
    SSG Victoir Patric Lieurance, TN
    SPC Justin W. Linden, OR
    SSG Tommy Seary Little, MS
    SPC Jeremy Loveless, AL
    SSG David L Loyd, TN
    CPT Robert Lucero, WY
    SPC Audrey Daron Lunsford, MS
    SPC Derrick Joseph Lutters, KS
    SPC Wai Phyo Lwin, NY
    SSG William Francis Manuel, LA
    SPC Joshua Samuel Marcum, AR
    PFC Ryan A. Martin, OH
    SGT Nicholas Conan Mason, VA
    SPC Patrick R. McCaffrey, Sr., CA
    1LT Erik S. McCrae, OR
    SPC Donald R. McCune, WA
    SGT John Edward McGee, AL
    SPC Jeremy Wayne McHalffey, AR
    SPC Eric S. McKinley, OR
    SPC Scott Paul McLaughlin, VT
    SSG Heath A. McMillan, NY
    SPC Robert Allen McNail, MS
    MSG Robbie Dean McNary, MT
    SPC Kenneth A. Melton, AR
    SGT Chad Michael Mercer, GA
    SSG Dennis P Merck, GA
    SPC Michael G. Mihalakis, CA
    SGT John Wayne Miller, IA
    CPT Lowell Thomas Miller II, MS
    SFC Troy L. Miranda, AR
    SGT Ryan Jay Montgomery, KY
    SGT Carl James Morgain, PA
    SPC Dennis B. Morgan, SD
    SGT Steve Morin Jr., TX
    SGT Shawna M. Morrison, II
    SPC Clifford L. Moxley, PA
    SPC Warren Anthony Murphy, LA
    SGT David Joseph Murray, LA
    SPC Nathan W. Nakis, OR
    SPC Creig Lewis Nelson, LA
    SSG Paul Christian Neubauer, CA
    SPC Joshua M. Neusche, MO
    SPC Paul Anthony Nicholas, CA
    SGT William J. Normandy, VT
    PFC Francis Chinomso Obaji, NY
    SGT John Banks Ogburn, OR
    SGT Nicholas Joseph Olivier, LA
    SSG Todd Donald Olson, WI
    SPC Richard P. Orengo, PR
    SSG Billy Joe Orton, AR
    SGT Timothy Ryndale Osbey, MS
    SSG Ryan Scott Ostrom, PA
    SSG Michael C. Ottolini, CA
    PFC Kristian E. Parker, LA
    SSG Saburant Parker, MS
    SPC Gennaro Pellegrini Jr., PA
    SGT Theodore L. Perreault, MA
    SSG David S. Perry, CA
    SGT Jacob Loren Pfingsten, MN
    SGT Ivory L. Phipps, IL
    CW2 Paul J. Pillen, SD
    SGT Foster Pinkston, GA
    SGT Darrin K. Potter, KY
    SGT Christopher S. Potts, RI
    SGT Lynn Robert Poulin, SR, ME
    SPC Robert Shane Pugh, MS
    SSG George Anthony Pugliese, PA
    SPC Joseph Andrew Rahaim, MS
    SPC Eric U. Ramirez, CA
    PFC Brandon Ramsey, IL
    SPC Christopher J. Ramsey, LA
    SSG Jose Carlos Rangel, CA
    SSG Johnathan Ray Reed, LA
    SSG Aaron T. Reese, OH
    SGT Gary Lee Reese Jr., TN
    SPC Jeremy L. Ridlen, IL
    CPL John T. Rivero, FL
    SSG William Terry Robbins, AR
    CPL Jeremiah W. Robinson, AZ
    SSG Alan Lee Rogers, UT
    PFC Hernando Rois, NY
    SFC Daniel Romero, CO
    SGT Brian Matthew Romines, IL
    SFC Robert E. Rooney, MA
    SPC David L. Roustrum, NY
    SGT Roger D. Rowe, TN
    SGT David Alan Ruhren, VA
    CW4 William Ruth, MD
    SPC Lyle Wyman Rymer II, AR
    SGT Paul Anthony Saylor, GA
    SFC Daniel Ronald Scheile, CA
    SPC Jeremiah W. Schmunk, WA
    SPC Bernard Leon Sembly, LA
    SPC Jeffrey R. Shaver, WA
    SGT Kevin Sheehan, VT
    SGT Ronnie Lee Shelley, GA
    SGT James Alexander Sherrill, KY
    1LT Andrew Carl Shields, SC
    SGT Alfredo Barajas Silva, CA
    SGT Alfred Barton Silver, TN
    SGT Isiah Joseph Sinclair, LA
    SPC Roshan ``Sean'' R. Singh, NY
    SPC Aaron J. Sissel, IA
    1LT Brian D. Slavenas, IL
    SGT Eric Wentworth Slebodnik, PA
    SGT Keith Smette, ND
    CW4 Bruce A. Smith, IA
    CPL Darrell L. Smith, IN
    SGT Michael Antonio Smith, AR
    SPC Norman Kyle Snyder, IN
    SGT Mike Takeshi Sonoda Jr., CA
    SGT Patrick Dana Stewart, NV
    SGT Michael James Stokely, GA
    Maj Gregory Stone, ID
    SPC Chrystal Gale Stout, SC
    2LT Matthew R. Stoval, MS
    SGT Francis Joseph Straub Jr., PA
    SGT Thomas James Strickland, GA
    WO1 Adrian Bovee Stump, OR
    SSG Michael Sutter, MI
    SGT Robert Wesley Sweeney III, LA
    SGT Deforest L. Talbert, WV
    SFC Linda A. Tarango-Griess, NE
    SPC Christopher M. Taylor, AL
    SGT Shannon D. Taylor, TN
    MSG Thomas R. Thigpen, Sr., SC
    SGT John Frank Thomas, GA
    SGT Paul William Thomason, TN
    1LT Jason Gray Timmerman, MN
    SGT Humberto F. Timoteo, NJ
    SPC Eric Lee Toth, KY
    SPC Seth Randell Trahan, LA
    SPC Quoc Binh Tran, CA
    SGT Robert W. Tucker, TN
    2LT Andre D. Tyson, CA
    SPC Daniel P. Unger, CA
    PFC Wilfredo Fernando Urbina, NY
    SGT Michael A. Uvanni, NY
    SGT Gene Vance Jr., WV
    SGT Daniel Ryan Varnado, MS
    1LT Michael W. Vega, CA
    PFC Kenneth Gri Vonronn, NY
    SSG Michael Scott Voss, NC
    PFC Brandon J. Wadman, FL
    SGT Andrew Peter Wallace, WI
    SFC Charles Houghton Warren, GA
    SFC Mark C. Warren, OR
    SPC Glenn James Watkins, WA
    SPC Michael J. Wedling, WI
    SSG David J. Weisenburg, OR
    SPC Cody Lee Wentz, ND
    SPC Jeffrey M. Wershow, FL
    SGT Marshall Westbrook, NM
    SPC Lee Alan Wiegand, PA
    1LT Charles L. Wilkins III, OH
    SPC Michael L. Williams, NY
    SFC Christopher R. Willoughby, GA
    SSG Clinton L. Wisdom, KS
    SPC Robert A. Wise, FL
    SPC Michelle M. Witmer, WI
    SGT Elijah Tai Wah Wong, AZ
    SFC Ronald Tanner Wood, UT
    SGT Roy A. Wood, FL

         LIEUTENANT GENERAL H STEVEN BLUM, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
                 CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        This past year the National Guard demonstrated how superbly it
    simultaneously performs our dual missions, state and federal.
        In August 2005, with more than 80,000 troops already mobilized for
    the global war on terror and faced with Katrina, a catastrophic
    hurricane, the Gulf Coast governors called upon the Guard. The Guard,
    the nation's preeminent military domestic response force, fulfilled our
    commitment to the governors and our neighbors. In spite of a massive
    wartime mobilization, the Guard mobilized and deployed the largest
    domestic response force in history. Soldiers and Airmen from all 50
    states, the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia deployed in
    record time in support of their Gulf Coast neighbors. Never before had
    every corner of America answered the desperate cry of our neighbors in
    such unison. Truly, when you call out the Guard, you call out America!
        Guard forces were in hurricane affected neighborhoods rescuing
    people within four hours of Katrina's landfall. More than 11,000
    Soldiers and Airmen were involved in rescue operations on August 31.
    The Guard mobilized and deployed, in support of rescue and recovery, an
    additional 19,000 troops in the following 96 hours. Guard participation
    peaked at over 50,000 personnel on September 7. More than 6,500 Guard
    men and women were in New Orleans alone by September 2, 2005. The
    National Guard responded in spite of massive overseas deployment of
    personnel and equipment in support of our federal mission.
        No state, regardless of its size, can handle a natural or man-made
    catastrophe of the magnitude of a Katrina. Emergency Management
    Assistance Compacts allowed governors of affected states to immediately
    call upon another state's National Guard as reinforcements for recovery
    efforts. In 23 states, the Adjutant General also serves as the State
    Director of Emergency Management, State Director of Homeland Security,
    or both. This is an important aid in the coordination of the civil and
    military response.
        The National Guard has undergone a total transformation in the past
    few years. The once ponderous Cold War strategic reserve transformed
    itself into an agile, lethal operational force capable of joint and
    expeditionary warfare--a uniquely flexible force simultaneously capable
    of responding to a broad range of civil and humanitarian crises.
        The Guard serves our nation and communities across the full
    spectrum of domestic and warfighting missions. We fight narco-terrorism
    through our counterdrug programs. We work with our nation's youth
    through programs like StarBase and ChalleNGe to ensure they have a
    brighter future. We stand guard over America's critical physical and
    cyber infrastructure. Our Airmen fly the vast majority of air
    sovereignty missions over America's cities, while our Soldiers man air
    defense batteries in the nation's capital and the nation's sole
    ballistic missile interceptor site in Alaska. We conduct peacekeeping
    operations in Kosovo and the Sinai, stand watch aboard military cargo
    ships as they transit the Persian Gulf, guard prisoners in Guantanamo
    Bay, and train the Iraqi and Afghan national armies. Joint and
    multinational training, exercises, humanitarian support and a variety
    of other missions have taken the Guard overseas to more than 40 nations
    on five continents last year alone.
        The Guard stands more ready, reliable, essential and accessible
    today than at anytime in its near-four hundred years of existence.
    Since 9/11, we have been employed around the world and here at home as
    an operational force in a variety of contingencies. It is a role that
    the Guard was not structured to perform before 9/11. The Guard--with
    the exception of those units mobilized for war--is still under-
    resourced for many of the missions it now performs. Army Guard units in
    particular remain manned at Cold War levels, lack a robust cadre of
    full-time support personnel, and are equipped well below wartime
    requirements. Other vestiges of this Cold War construct, such as a
    needlessly-long mobilization process, continue to hamper the most
    efficient use of the Guard.
        Our nation's reliance on the Guard is unprecedented at this stage
    in a major war. At one point in 2005, the Army National Guard
    contributed half of the combat brigades on the ground in Iraq. The
    Army's leadership has acknowledged that the Army could not sustain its
    presence in Iraq without the Guard. As of January 1, 2006, over 350
    Guard men and women have given their lives while engaged in this global
    struggle.
        Guard units bring more to the warfight than just Soldiers and
    Airmen. There is ample anecdotal evidence that the civilian skills
    Guard members possess make them exceptionally well suited for
    peacekeeping and nation building. An Iraqi policeman may have limited
    respect for an American Soldier who attempts to train him in the
    methods of civilian law enforcement. But, when that Soldier is a
    National Guardsman with 20 years of civilian experience as a police
    officer, that Soldier's credibility and impact as a trainer is vastly
    enhanced.
        Guard support to the warfight is not limited to our role on the
    battlefield. The Guard's unique State Partnership Program continues to
    support Combatant Commander's Security Cooperation Plans and strengthen
    alliances with 50 allied nations around the world. This immensely
    successful program has grown from direct military-to-military exchanges
    to encompass military-to-civilian and ultimately civilian-to-civilian
    exchanges. Once again, the citizen Soldiers and Airmen of the National
    Guard are the bridge that allows this to happen, with their combination
    of military and civilian backgrounds providing a sterling example of
    how America has peacefully balanced military and civilian interests for
    well over 300 years.
        National Guard units deployed to combat since September 11th have
    been the best-trained and equipped force in American history. The U.S.
    Army invested $4.3 billion to provide those units with the very best,
    state-of-the-art equipment.
        This is an unprecedented demonstration of the Army's commitment to
    ensure that no Soldier, regardless of component (Active, Guard, or
    Reserve), goes to war ill equipped or untrained. With the help of the
    U.S. Congress, this was accomplished over a two-year period. It is now
    a reality for National Guard overseas combat deployments.
        The Guard, since September 11th, has been well equipped for its
    overseas missions, and has demonstrated its Citizen-Soldier expertise
    across the full-spectrum of warfighting, peacekeeping, and security
    engagement with our allies. The response to Katrina, however, revealed
    serious shortcomings in the equipping of Guard units for Homeland
    Security and Defense. Guard units returned from the overseas warfight
    with a fraction of the equipment with which they deployed, leaving them
    far less capable of meeting training requirements, or more importantly,
    fulfilling their missions here at home.
        The senior leadership of the U.S. Army has committed to re-
    equipping the Guard, the nation's first domestic military responders.
    The Army has a comprehensive reset plan that recognizes the Army
    National Guard's critical role in Homeland Defense (HLD) and support to
    Homeland Security (HLS) operations. This will take time and resources.
    I am confident that a real sense of urgency exists to make this a
    reality for America. The Guard currently has less than 35 percent of
    the equipment it requires to perform its wartime mission. We gratefully
    acknowledge the $900 million down-payment Congress made on resourcing
    our needs as an operational force for HLD/HLS and the overseas
    warfight, and recognize the full cost of restoring readiness will
    require continuing long-term Congressional attention.
        Satellite and tactical communications equipment, medical equipment,
    utility helicopters, military trucks and engineer equipment are the
    Army Guard's highest equipment priorities. We must ensure that this
    equipment is identical to that required for wartime use, so that Guard
    units remain interoperable with their active component counterparts for
    both HLD/HLS and warfight operations. We also need to invest in an
    extensive non-lethal weapons capability for use in both domestic and
    overseas contingencies.
        Two years ago, I committed to the governors, our state Commanders-
    in-Chief that the National Guard Bureau would provide each of them with
    sufficient capabilities under state control, and an appropriate mix of
    forces, to allow them to respond to domestic emergencies. I also
    promised to provide a more predictable rotation model for the
    deployment of their Army Guard Soldiers, along the lines already in
    place for Air Guard units participating in the Air and Space
    Expeditionary Force deployments.
        The National Guard Bureau is committed to the fundamental principle
    that each and every state and territory must possess ten core
    capabilities for homeland readiness. Amidst the most extensive
    transformation of our Army and Air Forces in decades, we want to ensure
    that every governor has each of these ``essential 10'' capabilities: a
    Joint Force Headquarters for command and control; a Civil Support Team
    for chemical, biological, and radiological detection; engineering
    assets; communications; ground transportation; aviation; medical
    capability; security forces; logistics and maintenance capability.
        The final 11 Civil Support Teams were organized this past year,
    giving every state and territory the capability of rapidly assisting
    civil authorities in detecting and responding to a Weapons of Mass
    Destruction attack. These are joint units, consisting of both Army and
    Air National Guard personnel.
        Air Guard personnel in the Civil Support Teams are part of a larger
    trend. The National Guard has leveraged homeland defense capabilities
    from the Air Guard far beyond the now-routine mission of combat air
    patrols over our cities. Every state fields rapid reaction forces
    capable of quickly responding to a governor's summons, and in many
    cases these forces consist of Air Guard security police. The Air Guard
    also provides extensive HLS capabilities with its communications,
    ground transportation, and chemical-biological-radiological detection
    units.
        The civil engineering capabilities of Air Guard RED HORSE (Rapid
    Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineer) teams
    and the medical capabilities of Air Guard Expeditionary Medical Support
    (EMEDS) systems proved extremely valuable in responding to Katrina. We
    are examining fielding these capabilities on a regional basis for more
    rapid response to future disasters.
        Our 12 regional Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and
    high-yield Explosive (CBRNE) Enhanced Response Force Packages (CERFP)
    provide mass casualty decontamination, medical treatment, security and
    urban search and extraction in contaminated environment capabilities in
    addition to the special skills of the Civil Support Teams. These units
    are not dedicated solely to Homeland Defense, but are existing
    warfighting units that have been given a powerful new HLD capability by
    virtue of modest amounts of additional equipment and training. This
    program, a concept only two years ago, has already placed 12 certified
    force packages on the ground, with Congress authorizing an additional
    five in the fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriation. It is now an
    important part of the Guard's increasingly sophisticated Homeland
    Defense capability.
        The Guard has fielded six regional Critical Infrastructure
    Program--Mission Assurance Assessment (MAA) teams to conduct
    vulnerability assessments of Department of Defense critical
    infrastructure. These teams conduct force protection training and plan
    for emergency response to a terrorist attack or natural disaster
    striking our critical infrastructure. Four more teams will be fielded
    in fiscal year 2006. These specialized capabilities are available to
    any state or region, along with traditional Guard forces should they be
    needed.
        The most critical transformation the National Guard has undergone
    since 2001 has been in the Joint Forces Headquarters in each state,
    territory, and the District of Columbia (JFHQ-State). What used to be
    the State Area Command (STARC) and Air Guard State Headquarters,
    administrative organizations for peacetime control of units, has
    developed into a sophisticated headquarters and communications node
    capable of assuming command and control of units from all services and
    components when responding to a domestic emergency. Tested and proven
    during multiple National Special Security Events in 2004, these
    headquarters were further validated this past year by hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita.
        These headquarters, now operated on a continual 24/7/365 basis,
    must be linked together to provide robust capabilities to share secure
    and non-secure information within the State or Territory, to deployed
    incident site(s), and to other DOD and inter-governmental partners
    engaged in support of Homeland Defense and Defense Support to Civil
    Authorities missions. To support these needs in the near-term, NGB has
    fielded 13 rapid response communications packages--the Interim
    Satellite Incident Site Communications Set (ISISCS)--that are
    regionally-based, and which proved absolutely vital when the entire
    domestic communications infrastructure in the Gulf Coast region of the
    United States went down during Hurricane Katrina. To satisfy the full
    range of required Command and Control, Communications, and Computer
    (C4) capabilities, NGB and U.S. Northern Command have collaborated on
    the Joint Continental U.S. Communications Support Environment (JCCSE)
    construct. When fully implemented, the JCCSE will provide U.S. Northern
    Command, U.S. Pacific Command, the National Guard Bureau, each Joint
    Force Headquarters-State, and our inter-governmental partners with the
    vital C4 capabilities and services to support continuous and accurate
    situational awareness of operational capabilities at the State or
    Territory and incident levels; enhanced information sharing and
    collaboration capabilities to facilitate mission planning, resourcing,
    and execution; and a fully integrated trusted information sharing and
    collaboration environment to facilitate coordination and unity of
    effort.
        Today we are taking on the challenge of responding to a potential
    flu pandemic that could challenge domestic tranquility like no other
    event since the Civil War. The forward deployed JFHQ-State are the only
    existing organization with the intrinsic capabilities, knowledge of
    local conditions and realities, geographic dispersion, resources and
    experience to coordinate the massive state-federal response that would
    be required in a pandemic of the predicted magnitude. Aided by the
    JCCSE communications backbone, the headquarters can assist civil
    authorities as they share a common operating picture, request and
    coordinate specialized regionally-based response forces, and receive
    follow-on forces from other states, federal reserve forces, or active
    duty forces.
        The Guard must continue to transform in order to maintain our
    status as a fully operational reserve of the Army and the Air Force,
    while at the same time increasing our ability to respond to terrorist
    attack or natural disaster at home. We must also continue to commit
    ourselves to recruiting and retaining a quality force capable of
    meeting these challenges for decades to come.
        Seventy-four percent of the Army National Guard's units are
    impacted by the U.S. Army's conversion to a modular force structure.
    The Army National Guard contribution to the modular total force
    includes 34 Brigade Combat Teams, six Fires Brigades, 10 Combat Support
    Brigades (Maneuver Enhancement), 11 Sustainment Brigades, 12 Aviation
    Brigades, an Aviation Command and three Sustainment Commands. These
    units are identical in structure to those in the active component, and,
    when resourced like their active counterparts, will allow a seamless
    transition between active and reserve forces in combat with minimal
    time required for train up.
        However, to make the Guard's units truly interchangeable, we must
    man them like the active Army, with an overhead allotment for trainees,
    transients, holdees, and students. Otherwise, we are forced to continue
    the debilitating practice of stripping other units of personnel
    whenever we mobilize a unit for war. In the same way, our full-time
    manning levels are also based on a Cold War construct, and assume that
    our units will have ample time to make up for a lack of readiness after
    mobilization. Cold War era manning levels limit the Guard's ability to
    perform as a modern, operational force.
        The National Guard continues to engage with Joint Forces Command
    and the Army to transform the lengthy and redundant mobilization
    process for Army Guard units, one of the last vestiges of our Cold War
    military construct. The no-notice deployment of 50,000 Guard members to
    the Gulf Coast for Hurricane Katrina, as well as the fact that over
    half of all current Army Guard members had been previously mobilized,
    makes the argument for streamlining mobilization more powerful than
    ever before in our 369 year history.
        The Air National Guard will continue to leverage its existing
    capabilities as it evolves to remain a full partner in the Future Total
    Air Force plan. The response to Hurricane Katrina reaffirmed the
    critical need for intra-theater airlift. The unprecedented, timely
    response would have been impossible without the Air Guard's airlift.
        The Base Realignment and Closure process removed the last flying
    unit from some states. Though the Air National Guard is expanding in
    such non-flying missions as intelligence, security police, and unmanned
    aerial vehicles, it is impossible to maintain a healthy, balanced Air
    National Guard structure in any state without some manned aircraft. The
    National Guard Bureau is entrusted to allocate Guard units among the
    states, and working together with the Air Force and Air Force Reserve,
    I will attempt to maintain manned aircraft in every state, territory,
    and the District of Columbia.
        The Air National Guard is at full strength, with retention and
    recruiting programs to fill the ranks. The Army National Guard has
    turned the corner and has begun to increase in strength due to the
    increases in bonuses and the funding of new recruiters authorized by
    Congress in 2004. However, we can do more to strengthen recruiting.
    Historically, Guard units enjoy close camaraderie because they are
    built around a network of Soldiers and Airmen who actively recruit
    their friends and family into their units. We acknowledge and encourage
    this powerful source of strength by promoting both the Guard Recruiting
    Assistance Program (G-RAP) and the ``Every Soldier a Recruiter'' (ESAR)
    initiatives, rewarding Guard members who make the extra effort to bring
    new enlistees into their units and sponsor them through the initial
    entry process.
        Retention of current Guard members, particularly those in units
    returning from overseas, is well above pre-September 11th levels.
    Nevertheless, we must remain aware of the negative impact that our most
    critical need--lack of equipment--has on our ability to recruit and
    retain Soldiers. Morale suffers when Soldiers cannot train for their
    wartime or domestic missions for lack of equipment.
        Our priorities this year to maintain a vibrant, capable and agile
    National Guard are recruiting and retention bonuses and initiatives,
    equipment reset and modernization and obtaining critical domestic
    mission resources. Our nation's future security mandates that the Guard
    continues to transform to meet challenges both at home and abroad.
        Critics maintain that more than four years of continuous service at
    home and abroad have stressed the National Guard to the breaking point.
    I emphatically disagree. Morale in the National Guard is superb. We
    fight a fanatical enemy overseas that has already demonstrated his
    desire to destroy our families and our nation. At home, the gratitude
    our nation displayed to its Army and Air National Guard in the wake of
    hurricanes Katrina and Rita has been invigorating. We understand the
    mission and purpose for which we have been called.
        We have been, and we remain, America's minutemen--Always Ready,
    Always There!

     LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLYDE A. VAUGHN, VICE CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
                       AND DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
                ``SERVING A NATION AT WAR: AT HOME AND ABROAD''
                           MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR

        During fiscal year 2005, the nation saw Army National Guard
    Soldiers at their best and busiest: fulfilling dual roles as citizens
    and Soldiers and responding frequently to the ``call to duty.'' Our
    Soldiers have been noticeably involved in operations both at home and
    around the world. In Iraq and Afghanistan, they continue to aid in the
    transition and struggle for a healthy democracy. Along the Gulf Coast
    after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Soldiers performed thousands of
    rescue and recovery operations. Across the nation, they continue to
    support communities and citizens in need. In fiscal year 2005, the
    National Interagency Fire Center responded to over 54,000 wild land
    fires that threatened over 8 million acres; the National Guard
    participated in a large proportion of these alerts. Citizen-Soldiers
    continued to guard key assets and responded to Governors' requests in
    support of state emergencies.
        Use of Army National Guard units in domestic and foreign
    contingencies continued in record-setting numbers throughout fiscal
    year 2005 with increased participation in areas of military support to
    civilian authorities, state active duty, counterdrug operations, and
    force protection. During Operation Winter Freeze (November 2004 through
    January 2005), the National Guard and active component Title 10 forces,
    in support of the U.S. Border Patrol, prevented illegal alien access
    along a 295-mile stretch of the U.S.-Canadian border. During the
    mission, the National Guard exposed three terrorist smuggling
    organizations.
        Following the best traditions of the Army National Guard, all 54
    states and territories engaged in one or more of the following
    operations: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom,
    Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Winter Freeze, Operation Unified
    Assistance (Tsunami Relief), Hurricane Recovery Operations for Katrina,
    Rita and Wilma, Stabilization Force Bosnia, Kosovo Force, Horn of
    Africa, Multi-National Force Observers, Guantanamo Bay Operations,
    Force Protection Europe, and numerous other missions. As we enter the
    fifth year of the Global War on Terrorism, we anticipate a slight
    downward trend in Overseas Continental United States (OCONUS)
    operations. We face some critical shortages that must be addressed over
    the coming year to ensure we continue to accomplish our missions.
        This Posture Statement presents an opportunity to detail Army
    National Guard plans to ensure our nation's defense, meet our strategic
    and legislative goals and transform to meet tomorrow's challenges. The
    Chief of the National Guard Bureau established our fiscal year 2006
    priorities to Defend the Homeland, Support the Warfight and
    Transformation for the Future.
        The Army National Guard balances its status as an integral element
    of the United States Army with its duty to serve the Governors and the
    people of our communities. Citizen-Soldiers represent thousands of
    communities across America. These Soldiers bring with them real world
    experience and provide capabilities to address both Homeland Security/
    Defense and overseas conflicts.
        The Army National Guard remains committed to completing the
    transformation from strategic reserve to operational force capable of
    both supporting the warfight and serving the Governors. We are able to
    maintain this commitment because of the continued dedication of our
    Soldiers, support from our families and the resources provided by
    Congress.

              HOMELAND DEFENSE: HERE AND ABROAD FOR OVER 369 YEARS

    Prepared and Ready
        The Army National Guard continued to provide forces for domestic
    missions throughout fiscal year 2005, particularly in the areas of
    disaster relief, state active duty, counterdrug operations, and force
    protection. In a major contribution to the Global War on Terrorism, the
    Army National Guard provided key asset protection for much of the
    nation. Readiness concerns such as full-time manning, recruiting,
    retention, and modernizing our ground and air fleets are the top
    priorities for the Army Guard in today's geostrategic environment.
        As the Global War on Terrorism continues, the Army National Guard
    will continue to meet the Army's requirements to protect our national
    interests, prevent future acts of terrorism, and meet Governors'
    requests to respond to state emergencies. However, some critical
    shortages still exist in the Guard structure and impose challenges to
    meet these requirements such as the accurate reporting of readiness.
        The Department of Defense has mandated the use of the Defense
    Readiness Reporting System. This action will impose readiness reporting
    challenges on the Army National Guard as it transitions to meet this
    requirement. This reporting system is a web-based readiness program
    that can provide a real time assessment of a unit's capability to
    execute its wartime or assigned missions. This allows the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense, Combatant Commands, and the Services direct
    access to unit readiness assessments.
    Full-Time Support
        Fighting the Global War on Terrorism underscores the vital role
    Full-Time Support personnel hold in preparing Army National Guard units
    for a multitude of missions both at home and abroad. Full-Time Support
    is a critical component for achieving soldier and unit-level readiness.
    Full-time Army National Guard Soldiers maintain responsibility for
    organizing, administering, instructing, training, and recruiting new
    personnel, and maintenance of supplies, equipment, and aircraft. Full-
    Time Support personnel are key to a successful transition from
    peacetime to wartime, as well as a critical link to the integration of
    the Army's components: Active, Guard, and Reserve. To meet the
    heightened readiness requirements of an operational force, the Chief,
    National Guard Bureau, in concert with the State Adjutants General,
    placed increasing Full-Time Support authorizations as the number one
    priority for the Army National Guard.
        The current Full-Time Support ramp received approval before 9/11.
    Although this ramp up was a step in the right direction it proved only
    marginally acceptable while the Army National Guard served as a
    strategic reserve. Following 9/11, the Army National Guard converted to
    an operational force mobilizing more than 240,000 Soldiers in support
    of the Global War on Terrorism. At the height of our mobilizations, the
    Army Guard deployed over 9,000 full-time support personnel. With fiscal
    resources only capable of backfilling the Active Guard Reserve at a 1:3
    ratio and the Military Technicians at a 1:5 ratio, the burden on our
    Full-Time Soldiers reached an all time high. As a result, the Army
    National Guard witnessed an increase in the attrition of our full-time
    force by over 40 percent.
        While we made progress in recent years to increase Full-Time
    Support, obstacles remain in obtaining acceptable full-time levels.
    Emerging and expanding Army National Guard missions must receive
    resources above those identified in the Full-Time Support ramp.
    Increased full-time resources are necessary to achieve acceptable unit
    readiness. It is critical we increase Full-Time Support in the near
    term to a minimum of 90 percent of the total validated requirement.
    This increase will ensure the highest levels of Combat Readiness (C1)
    and Personnel Readiness (P1) for Army National Guard units in the
    future.
    Protecting the Homeland
        National Guard Soldiers assisted civil authorities, established law
    and order, conducted disaster relief operations, and provided
    humanitarian assistance and force protection after two major hurricanes
    struck the Gulf Coast and flooded the city of New Orleans. The National
    Guard responded by surging more than 50,000 Soldiers and Airmen into
    the areas devastated by the successive impacts of Hurricanes Katrina
    and Rita. These Citizen-Soldiers provided much needed relief to the
    citizens and support to the local authorities. The operation was the
    largest domestic support mission in the nation's history.
    Training for the Future
        The Army Guard continued to provide battle focused and mission
    essential training to units preparing to defend the nation. Units
    preparing to deploy to Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom
    and other theaters rotated through the National Training Center, the
    Joint Readiness Training Center, and the Battle Command Training
    Center. Army Guard units also participated in major United States and
    overseas Joint Chiefs of Staff sponsored exercises, domestic support
    operations, conducted overseas deployments for training and operational
    support, as well as performing numerous small unit training exercises.
        The Army National Guard worked with U.S. Army Forces Command and
    Headquarters, Department of the Army in the development of an Army
    Force Generation Model. This model provides predictability of forces
    available and ready for operational deployments. It is also a paradigm
    shift, as it changes unit resourcing from a tiered approach to a time
    sequenced approach based on when a unit is expected to deploy. The Army
    National Guard developed improved training models that increase
    resources and training events to produce readiness leading up to a
    unit's expected deployment availability. This new paradigm also makes
    deployments more predictable for Guard Soldiers, their families and
    employers.
        The training priority for the Army National Guard is preparation of
    combat-ready Soldiers so that lengthy post-mobilization training can be
    avoided. As a result of the increased emphasis on ensuring our Soldiers
    are combat ready, the Army National Guard Duty Military Occupational
    Specialty Qualification rate for fiscal year 2005 was 92.29 percent
    (excluding those Soldiers on their Initial Entry Training). This high
    qualification rate was achieved through the implementation of the
    phased mobilization process. This allowed Army National Guard Soldiers
    who lacked the requisite training to complete their individual training
    while in the early stages of mobilization before they were deployed.
    Keeping the Force Strong: Recruiting and Retention
        Recruiting and retention goals have proven to be challenging during
    wartime. The Army Guard increased the numbers of recruiting and
    retention NCOs from 2,700 in fiscal year 2004 to 4,600 by the end of
    fiscal year 2005, an increase of 1,900. The Army Guard plans to add an
    additional 500 in the first quarter of fiscal year 2006 for a total of
    5,100 recruiters. Many steps were taken in 2005 to assist in meeting
    our end strength missions. The Army Guard increased enlistment bonuses
    to $10,000, increased the reenlistment bonus to $15,000, and increased
    the prior service enlistment bonus to $15,000. We also increased
    retention bonuses from $5,000 to $15,000. These steps, as well as an
    increased recruiting and retention force, had positive effects and will
    posture the Army Guard for continued success in the future.
        The Guard Recruiting Assistance Program has produced remarkable
    gains in recruiting for the Army National Guard since its inception as
    a pilot program in late 2005. In its first 60 days, operating in 22
    states, the program has trained more than 19,000 Active Recruiting
    Assistants and is processing more than 6,000 potential soldiers. Over
    1,000 new accessions have already been produced, and the program will
    be expanded to every state by March, 2006. The program is an adaptation
    of our civilian contract recruiting programs that allows the contractor
    to train local recruiting assistants--currently primarily traditional
    Guardsmen--who often serve in the same units and act as sponsors for
    the new recruits.
        The Every Soldier a Recruiter program is a separate brand-new
    congressionally authorized referral program that will reward soldiers,
    including soldiers on active duty and military Technicians, who provide
    quality leads of non-prior service recruits who join the active Army,
    Guard or Army Reserve.
        Congressionally directed end strength for fiscal year 2005 was
    350,000 Soldiers for the Army National Guard. The actual end of year
    strength was 333,177 Soldiers (296,623 enlisted and 36,554 officers).
    Although below the target, we experienced three consecutive months of
    net gains in end strength to finish the year, the first time in 24
    months, and we have thus-far exceeded our goals for fiscal year 2006 in
    each month since the year started. The accession program's goal was
    67,000 Soldiers (63,000 enlisted and 4,000 officers) for fiscal year
    2005. The programmed attrition rate was 18.0 percent, and the non-prior
    service/prior service accession ratio was 60:40. At the end of fiscal
    year 2005, we exceeded our goal for prior service accessions by 104
    percent, but fell short in the non-prior service category by 67
    percent, thus making the actual fiscal year 2005 accession ratio 55:45
    non-prior service/prior service. Command emphasis in the areas of
    attrition and retention kept the loss rate for fiscal year 2005 at 19.1
    percent, slightly above the program goal of 18 percent. Considering the
    unprecedented Army Guard mobilizations and deployments, this was an
    admirable achievement.
        Retention of those already in the Army National Guard was superb.
    The first term Soldier reenlistment goal was 8,945 Soldiers, but
    reenlistments were 9,107 for 101.8 percent of the goal. The Careerist
    Reenlistment goal was 23,626 Soldiers and the actual reenlistments were
    24,697 Soldiers for 104.5 percent of the goal. The overall retention
    achievement for the Army National Guard in fiscal year 2005 was 103.8
    percent.
        The No Validated (No-Val) Pay rate for 2005 was only 1.8 percent. A
    Soldier's name will appear on the non-validated pay report when that
    Soldier fails to attend training and has not been paid within the last
    90 days. The fact that the No-Val rate is at an all-time low
    demonstrates that Soldiers who stay in the Army National Guard value
    their membership and want to remain active participants.
    Environmental Programs
        The Army National Guard Environmental Program manages resources to
    foster environmental quality and maintain compliance with all
    applicable federal, state, and local environmental requirements. The
    fiscal year 2005 Environmental, Operations, and Maintenance
    Appropriation was adequate to fully fund all critical environmental
    compliance, conservation, and pollution prevention projects. Fiscal
    year 2005 environmental restoration funding provided to the Army Guard
    was adequate to accomplish minimum essential cleanup requirements.
        Army National Guard training lands are the cornerstone of trained
    and ready Soldiers. Evolving transformation actions require that we
    maximize our maneuver and firing range capabilities over the existing 2
    million acres of Army National Guard training lands and mitigate the
    effects of encroachment from suburban sprawl. Through coordination with
    surrounding communities and the use of legislative authority, the Army
    National Guard was able to partner with private, local and state
    organizations for acquisition of easements to limit incompatible
    development in the vicinity of its installations.

                    SUPPORT THE WARFIGHTER ANYTIME, ANYWHERE

    The Citizen-Soldier: Defending the Nation
        From July 2002 through September 2005, overall unit readiness
    decreased by 41 percent in order to provide personnel and equipment to
    deploying units. Personnel, training, and on hand equipment decreased
    between 18 and 36 percent while equipment readiness declined by 10.1
    percent during the same period. Despite declines in the areas of
    personnel and equipment due to increased mobilizations, deployments,
    and funding, the Army National Guard met all mission requirements and
    continued to support the Global War on Terrorism. From September 11,
    2001 through September 2005, the Army National Guard deployed over 69
    percent (325,000) of its personnel in support of the Global War on
    Terrorism, homeland defense, and state missions.
    Equipping the Force
        The Army National Guard established funding priorities based on the
    Army Chief of Staff's vision for modernizing the total force core
    competencies. The Army National Guard's focus is to organize and equip
    current and new modularized units with the most modern equipment
    available. This modernization ensures our ability to continue support
    of deployments, homeland security and defense efforts while maintaining
    our highest war fighting readiness. Although all shortages are
    important, the Army National Guard is placing special emphasis on
    ``dual use'' equipment such as the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles,
    channel hopping Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System
    (SINCGARS), Joint Network Node, and Movement Tracking System. Filling
    these shortages ensures interoperability with the active force and
    increases the Army National Guard's ability to respond to natural
    disasters or in a homeland defense role.
        This requires the Rapid Fielding Initiative to equip our Soldiers
    with the latest gear, such as body armor, night vision devices and
    small arms. Additionally, it requires a steady flow of resources to the
    Army National Guard to mitigate shortages caused by lack of past
    resourcing, force structure changes, and the heightened importance of
    homeland security.
    Intelligence Operations
        Army National Guard Military Intelligence units and personnel
    continue to play a vital role in the Global War on Terrorism, and are
    deployed worldwide to support critical tactical, operational, and
    strategic intelligence operations. Army Guard personnel are supporting
    mission critical areas in Human Intelligence, Signal Intelligence,
    Measurement and Signatures Intelligence, Imagery Intelligence and Open
    Source Intelligence. Army National Guard linguists are engaged in
    document exploitation, translation and interpretation within the
    Department of Defense, such as the National Security Agency, as well as
    other federal agencies. More importantly, Army National Guard Military
    Intelligence units are deployed at the tactical level with each Army
    National Guard combat division and brigade providing critical and
    timely intelligence on the battlefield.
    Information Operations
        The Army National Guard continues to provide a number of Full
    Spectrum Information Operation Teams in support of a broad range of
    Army missions and contingency operations. Army National Guard
    Information Operations Field Support Teams provide tactical,
    operational and strategic planning capabilities at all echelons of the
    Army. Army Guard Brigade Combat Teams deploy to all theaters with
    organic information operations cells that provide support and
    coordination at all levels of military planning and execution. Army
    Guard Computer Emergency Response Teams and Vulnerability Assessment
    Teams provide technical expertise, information assurance assessments
    and certification compliance inspections of critical Wide Area and
    Local Area networks for Army installations worldwide.
    Innovative Readiness Training
        The Innovative Readiness Training program highlights the Citizen-
    Soldier's role in support of eligible civilian organizations. This
    program provides real-world, joint training opportunities for Army
    National Guard Soldiers within the United States. The projects provide
    ancillary benefits to the local communities in the form of construction
    projects or medical services to underserved populations.
        More than 7,000 Soldiers and Airmen from across the United States
    and its territories participate annually in Innovative Readiness
    Training sponsored projects. Army National Guard projects include:
      --Operation Alaskan Road, a joint, multi-year fifteen mile road
            construction project on Annette Island, Alaska
      --Expansion and improvement of the Benedum Airport infrastructure in
            Clarksburg, West Virginia
      --Task Force Grizzly, Task Force Diamondback and Task Force Lobo
            continue to improve existing road networks and build barrier
            fencing in support of the U.S. Border Patrol in California,
            Arizona and New Mexico
      --The South Carolina Guard's REEFEX project. REEFEX uses
            decommissioned Army vehicles to create artificial reefs in the
            Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New England and South Carolina.
    Training the Nation's Warfighter
        The Army National Guard's unique condition of limited training
    time, dollars and, in some cases, difficult access to training ranges,
    demands an increased reliance on low cost, small footprint training
    technologies. Quick response by the Army National Guard to our nation's
    missions requires a training strategy that reduces post mobilization
    training time. New virtual technologies and simulators therefore become
    critical tools to help the Army National Guard maintain a ready
    operational force. Some of these training systems are:
      --The Virtual Convoy Operations Trainer. This is a simulation aid
            specifically adapted for current operations in Iraq and
            Afghanistan. It is funded with a combination of Congressional
            add-ons and National Guard Reserve Equipment Appropriation
            funds. The Army Guard placed 14 trainers under contract and
            fielded eight in fiscal 2005; the remaining six will be fielded
            in fiscal year 2006.
      --The Advanced Bradley Full Crew Interactive Skills Trainer virtual
            gunnery system. This is a low cost, deployable training system
            that appends directly to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and
            enhances home station training in advance of a live fire event.
      --The Engagement Skills Trainer 2000. This system simulates weapons-
            training events. These trainers provide initial and sustainment
            marksmanship training, static unit collective gunnery tactical
            training and shoot/don't shoot training. Soldiers use this
            trainer primarily for multipurpose, multi-lane, small arms,
            crew-served and individual anti-tank training simulation. The
            trainer simulates day and night, as well as Nuclear, Biological
            and Chemical marksmanship and tactical environments.
      --The Laser Marksmanship Training System simulates weapons training
            events that lead to live fire qualifications for individual and
            crew served weapons. This system allows the Soldier to use
            their own personal weapons to conduct individual and
            sustainment marksmanship training using Nuclear, Biological and
            Chemical equipment.
      --The eXportable Combat Training Capability. This capability allows
            us to take the Maneuver Combat Training Center environment to
            the unit. We are able to tailor this training to meet any
            operational focus from the conventional warfight to the
            contemporary operational environment in Iraq and Afghanistan.
            The eXportable Combat Training Capability, along with
            traditional Maneuver Combat Training Center rotations, will
            provide units with ``final exam'' certification as required by
            the Army Force Generation model prior to deployments.
    Information Technology
        The Army National Guard successfully increased the bandwidth and
    provided a secure data link to the Joint Force Headquarters in each of
    the 50 states, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two U.S. Territories, and
    the District of Columbia. The Army Guard's modern wide-area network
    provides improved redundancy and increased network security.

      TRANSFORMATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: READY, RELIABLE, ESSENTIAL AND
                                   ACCESSIBLE

    Ground-based Midcourse Defense
        Defending against ballistic missile attack is a key component of
    the National Security Strategy for Homeland Defense. In the initial
    defensive operations phase, the Army National Guard plays a major role
    in this mission as the force provider for the Ground-based Midcourse
    Defense system. We have assigned Active Guard-Reserve manpower to
    support this new role. The Ballistic Missile Defense program is
    dynamic--undergoing constant refinement and change.
        Soldiers assigned to Ground-based Midcourse Defense perform two
    missions:
      --Federal Military Mission.--The federal military mission is to plan,
            train, certify, secure, inspect, coordinate, and execute the
            defense of the United States against strategic ballistic
            missile attacks by employing this system; and
      --State Military Mission.--In accordance with Title 32, the state
            military mission is to provide trained and ready units,
            assigned personnel, and administrative and logistic support.
    Logistics and Equipment
        The Army National Guard continues modernization to the digital
    force with the emerging technologies that will dramatically improve
    logistical support for these systems, substantially reduce repair
    times, increase operational readiness rates and eliminate obsolete and
    unsustainable test equipment. Use of these technologies allows the Army
    Guard to operate heavy equipment at a higher operational rate while
    reducing the overall costs for these systems.
        The Army National Guard currently has a significant portion of the
    Army's maintenance infrastructure. This Cold War infrastructure is
    expensive and redundant. Under the Army's new maintenance strategy, the
    Army Guard and other Army elements are consolidating maintenance
    systems. This enhances maintenance and improves efficiency. Army
    maintenance personnel now effectively diagnose and maintain equipment
    at two maintenance levels instead of four.
    Personnel Transformation
        The human dimension of Army National Guard transformation is the
    crucial link to the realization of future capabilities and to the
    enhanced effectiveness of current capabilities. Transformation of human
    resource policies, organizations, and systems will enhance Army
    National Guard ability to provide force packages and individuals at the
    right place and time. Future web-based systems will integrate personnel
    and pay, provide accurate human resource information for commanders,
    and give Soldiers direct access to their records. Evolving current
    systems such as Standard Installation Defense Personnel System and the
    Reserve Component Automation System applications extend current
    capabilities and enhance readiness, providing support for development
    of an electronic record brief and automated selection board support.
    Aviation Transformation and Modernization
        Army National Guard aviation completed 109 percent of the flying
    hours projected for fiscal year 2005, an average of 9.9 aircrew flying
    hours per month--the highest level since 1996. During fiscal year 2005,
    an average of 307 aircrews were deployed each month in support of
    Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, the Balkans (Kosovo Force and
    Stabilization Force Bosnia), and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
        Army National Guard aircrews flew more than 94,000 hours this past
    year in support of the Global War on Terrorism. This is a 58 percent
    increase over fiscal year 2004. More than 245,000 hours were flown in
    support of the Army Guard missions for homeland security, training,
    counterdrug, and combat operations. Despite the fact that 30 percent of
    the Army National Guard aviation force structure was deployed, the Army
    aviation transformation process continued. As aircraft were
    redistributed to modernize units, aircrew qualification and proficiency
    training was accelerated to meet emerging deployments.
        On the home front, the Army National Guard aviation community
    continued to support domestic contingencies by flying over 7,485
    missions, transporting nearly 62,117 civilians to safe havens, and
    transporting Army National Guard Soldiers to hurricane-ravaged zones.
    Support aircraft were flying recovery and relief missions in Louisiana
    within four hours of Katrina's passage. In addition to moving
    approximately 7,300 tons of equipment, food, sandbags, and life saving
    supplies, we rescued almost 16,000 of our citizens during Hurricane
    Katrina and Rita relief and recovery efforts. At the peak of the relief
    and recovery efforts, the Army National Guard had 151 aircraft on
    station supporting Louisiana and Mississippi.
        In Texas after Hurricane Rita, the Army National Guard flew 185
    missions, transported 117 civilian and military personnel, moved 31
    tons of supplies, and conducted 19 rescue or life-saving missions.
    Aviation assets from 28 states rallied to support Louisiana,
    Mississippi, and Texas in their relief and recovery efforts after
    Katrina and Rita. A total of 5,341 flight hours have been flown since
    August 2005.
        The Army National Guard aviation force continues modernizing, but
    at a pace much slower than originally planned by the Army prior to the
    onset of combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Associated aircraft
    losses and the continuing need for more operational aircraft in theater
    slowed aircraft transfers from the active Army. This is especially true
    for the critically needed UH-60-Blackhawk helicopter (the bulk of the
    Army Guard's aviation force). An expanded summation of Army National
    Guard aviation assets and requirements are listed below:
    Training in ``One Army''
        Training centers support our ability to conduct performance-
    oriented training under real world conditions. The Army National Guard
    modernizes and restructures to effectively meet evolving warfighting
    requirements. We face a number of continuing challenges in sustaining
    power support platforms and modernizing Army National Guard live fire
    ranges and range operations for the Pennsylvania Guard's Stryker
    Brigade Combat Team. The Army National Guard will consolidate range and
    training land investment documentation under the Sustainable Range
    Program.
        The Army National Guard achieves training excellence by leveraging
    Distributed Learning. Distributed Learning improves unit and Soldier
    readiness by increasing access to training resources and reducing
    unnecessary time away from the home station. Interactive Multimedia
    Instruction courseware, satellite programming and distance learning
    offer needed instruction in such areas as Military Occupational Skill
    Qualification reclassification for Soldiers and units.

                                    SUMMARY

        The Army National Guard engages in a full spectrum of civil-
    military operations. Our Soldiers represent every state, territory, and
    sector of society. Today, they represent their nation serving honorably
    throughout the world. In these critical times, the Army National Guard
    must maintain readiness. A vital part of the Army's force structure,
    the Army Guard remains a community based force committed to engage in
    overseas missions while protecting and serving our cities and towns.
    The Army National Guard proves itself capable of carrying out its goals
    of supporting the Warfight, defending the Homeland and transforming
    into a ready, reliable, essential and accessible force for the 21st
    century.
        The National Guard is foremost a family. This year we remember the
    spirit and sacrifice of Guard families who lost homes and loved ones
    during the Gulf Coast hurricane season. For his selfless service
    responding to Hurricane Katrina, we honor the memory of: Sergeant
    Joshua E. Russell, Detachment 1, Company A, 890th Engineer Battalion.
    lieutenant general daniel james iii, vice chief, national guard bureau

                        AND DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
                           MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR

        What an incredible year this has been for the nation and the Air
    National Guard! The Air Guard continues to serve with distinction at
    home and abroad. At home, the Hurricane Katrina relief effort brought
    into sharp focus our role as America's Hometown Air Force. We flew over
    3,000 sorties, moved over 30,000 passengers, and hauled over 11,000
    tons of desperately needed supplies. Air Guardsmen saved 1,443 lives--
    heroically pulling stranded Americans off rooftops to safety. Air
    National Guard medical units treated over 15,000 patients at eight
    sites along the Gulf Coast, combining expert medical care with
    compassion for our fellow Americans.
        Abroad, the Air Guard brings the will of the American people to the
    Global War on Terrorism. The Air Guard fulfills 34 percent of the Air
    Force's missions on 7 percent of the Air Force's budget, a definite
    bargain in fiscally constrained times. Our contributions over the past
    four years have been tremendous. Since September 11, 2001, we've
    mobilized over 36,000 members and have flown over 206,000 sorties
    accumulating over 620,000 flying hours. One-third of the Air Force
    aircraft in Operation Iraqi Freedom were from the Air Guard. We flew
    100 percent of the Operation Enduring Freedom A-10 missions and 66
    percent of the Iraqi Freedom A-10 taskings. We accomplished 45 percent
    of the F-16 sorties. The A-10s flew more combat missions in the Iraqi
    war than any other weapon system.
        We flew 86 percent of the Operation Iraqi Freedom tanker sorties.
    We accomplished this primarily through the Northeast Tanker Task Force.
    In keeping with our militia spirit, that task force was initially
    manned through volunteerism. A total of 18 units supported it; 15 were
    from the Air National Guard.
        Air National Guard Security Forces were the first security forces
    on the ground in Iraq. Intelligence personnel have been providing
    unique capabilities for Central Command and organizational support for
    the U-2, Predator, and Global Hawk. Medical personnel have been using
    the new Expeditionary Medical Support system capability, providing
    critical care to the warfighter. Civil Engineers have built bare bases
    in the desert and trained Iraqi firefighters while Weather personnel
    worldwide provided over 50 percent of the Army's weather support.
    Financial Management personnel have been diligently working to keep
    benefits moving to our members despite challenging pay, allowance and
    benefit entitlements and complex administration systems. Air National
    Guard Command, Control, Communications and Computer personnel have kept
    vital information flowing on one end of the spectrum and provided
    Ground Theater Air Control System Personnel on the other. And our
    tireless chaplains have been providing outstanding spiritual aid out in
    the field. We have been able to participate at these levels because we
    provide Expeditionary and Homeland Defense capabilities that are
    relevant to the nation.
        Today as we look toward our future relevancy, having proven
    ourselves as indispensable and equal Total Force partners, we have to
    be prepared to transform with the Total Force. We are now in a position
    to make the decisions that will influence our next evolution . . .
    transforming the Air National Guard.
        Some of today's capabilities may not be required in the future. The
    future Air Force will rely heavily on technological advances in space,
    command and control, intelligence and reconnaissance systems,
    information warfare, unmanned aerial vehicles, and the ability to
    conduct high volume and highly accurate attacks with significantly
    fewer platforms. For the Air Guard to remain Total Force partners, we
    have carved out our strategy in those areas and will explore new
    organizational constructs. Among those constructs are various forms of
    integrated units where we can combine individual units with other Air
    Guard units or with another service component. We have to expand our
    capabilities as joint warfighters and make the necessary changes to
    integrate seamlessly into the joint warfighting force. To remain
    relevant we must continue to listen to the messages that are being sent
    today.
        Now is the time for us to lead the way by considering, selecting
    and implementing new concepts and missions that leverage our unique
    strengths to improve Total Force capabilities in support of
    expeditionary roles and homeland defense. This can only be accomplished
    by involving all Air National Guard stakeholders, working toward a
    common goal . . . enhanced capabilities to assure future relevance for
    the Air National Guard.
        By addressing together the complex issues that face us, we will
    keep the Air National Guard ``Ready, Reliable, Essential and
    Accessible--Needed Now and in the Future.''

              HOMELAND DEFENSE: HERE AND ABROAD FOR OVER 90 YEARS

    Air Sovereignty Alert
        Since September 11, 2001, thousands of Air National guardsmen have
    been mobilized to operate alert sites and alert support sites for
    Operation Noble Eagle in support of Homeland Defense. Our Air National
    Guard has partnered with active duty and reserve forces to provide
    Combat Air Patrol, random patrols, and aircraft intercept protection
    for large cities and high-valued assets in response to the increased
    terrorist threat. The Air National Guard has assumed the responsibility
    of all ground alert sites and some irregular Combat Air Patrols
    periods. This partnering agreement maximizes our nation's current
    basing locations and capitalizes on the high experience levels within
    the Air Guard and its professional history in Air Defense operations.
        To continue operations at this indefinite pace has posed some
    unique funding and manning challenges for both the field and
    headquarters staffs. As we move into the fiscal year 2006 Program
    Objective Memoranda exercise, the active Air Force and Air National
    Guard will continue to work towards a permanent solution for our alert
    force and seek ways to incorporate these temporary Continuum of Service
    tours into permanent programs.
    Space Operations: Using the Stars to Serve the Community
        For the Air Guard, space operations provide a critical
    communications link to communities throughout the nation in the form of
    satellite support for everyday uses, television, computers, and
    wireless phones, but also serve as an important military deterrence
    from external threats. Colorado's 137th Space Warning Squadron provides
    mobile survivable and endurable missile warning capability to U.S.
    Strategic Command. Recently, Air National Guard units in Wyoming and
    California have come out of conversion to provide operational command
    and control support to Northern Command and to provide round-the-clock
    support to the Milstar satellite constellation. Alaska's 213th Space
    Warning Squadron ensures America's defense against nuclear threat by
    operating one of our nation's Solid State Phased Array Radar that
    provides missile warning and space surveillance.
        The Air Force has approved space missions for the 119th Command and
    Control Squadron in Tennessee to support the U.S. Strategic Command,
    and the 114th Range Flight in Florida is partnered with an active Air
    Force unit performing the Launch Range safety mission. There are future
    plans by the Air Force to transition additional space program missions
    and assets in Alaska and other states to Air National Guard control.

                    SUPPORT THE WARFIGHTER ANYTIME, ANYWHERE

        The Air National Guard has been contributing to the Global War on
    Terrorism across the full spectrum of operations. During the peak of
    Operation Iraqi Freedom, we had over 22,000 members mobilized or on
    volunteer status to support the Global War on Terrorism worldwide. In
    Operation Iraqi Freedom we flew 43 percent of the fighter sorties, 86
    percent of the tanker sorties, 66 percent of the A-10s close air
    support sorties and 39 percent of the airlift sorties. At the same time
    we were flying almost 25 percent of the Operation Enduring Freedom
    fighter sorties and over 20 percent of the tanker sorties.
        However, our capabilities do not reside only in aircraft: 15
    percent of our expeditionary combat support was engaged during this
    same period. This includes 60 percent of security forces, many of whom
    were mobilized for the longest duration. Additionally, about 25 percent
    of our intelligence, services and weather personnel were mobilized.
    Logistics and transportation capabilities are vital to homeland defense
    as well as our expeditionary mission.
        Air National Guard men and women are proud to defend and protect
    our nation at home and abroad. Often, however, support equipment
    requirements overseas necessitate that equipment remain in place,
    causing a shortage of equipment for training at home. We are working
    with Air Force and Defense Department leaders to develop a solution.
    Medical Service Transformation--Expeditionary Combat Support, Homeland
            Defense, and Wing Support
        The Air National Guard's Surgeon General led the Air National Guard
    Medical Service through its most revolutionary transformation in
    history by reconfiguring its medical capabilities into Expeditionary
    Medical Support systems. These systems provide highly mobile,
    integrated and multifunctional medical response capabilities. They are
    the lightest, leanest and most rapidly deployable medical platforms
    available to the Air National Guard today. This system is capable of
    simultaneously providing Expeditionary Combat Support to the warfighter
    for Air and Space Expeditionary Force missions, Homeland Defense
    emergency response capabilities to the states and support to the Air
    National Guard Wings.
        The Expeditionary Medical Support capability allowed ten percent of
    Air National Guard medical unit personnel to deploy for Operation Iraqi
    Freedom, compared to only three percent in the early 1990s for
    deployments for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. The U.S.
    Central Command has validated that the Expeditionary Medical Support
    system is a perfect fit for the Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force Global
    Strike Task Force and Concept of Operations.
        The Expeditionary Medical Support system also plays a critical role
    in Homeland Defense. The Air National Guard Medical Service plays a
    vital role in the development and implementation of the National
    Guard's Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield
    Explosive Enhanced Response Force Package. This package will provide
    support to state and local emergency responders and improve Weapons of
    Mass Destruction response capabilities in support of the Civil Support
    Teams. The Air National Guard has contributed to the 12 trained CERFP
    teams and will build towards 76 Expeditionary Medical Support teams by
    2011.
        The Guard's short-term objective is to obtain 20 Small Portable
    Expeditionary Aerospace Rapid Response equipment sets, two for each
    Federal Emergency Management Agency region. This would allow for
    additional reachback capability for the Civil Support Teams and the
    states. This has been a prelude to the next step in the Air National
    Guard Medical Service Transformation.
        At Readiness Frontiers, over 100 medical planners received Federal
    Emergency Management Agency training to enhance Air National Guard
    Medical Service responsiveness to homeland disasters. This is the first
    time the medical service has taken on an endeavor of this magnitude and
    allows for future training opportunities in building routine
    relationships with military, federal and civilian response personnel.
        The Air National Guard medical service's new force structure
    provided by the Expeditionary Medical Support system delivers
    standardized and much-improved force health protection, public health,
    agent detection, and health surveillance capabilities to better support
    all Air Guard Wings. This will enhance the protection of the wings'
    resources and improve the medical readiness of its personnel.
    Eyes and Ears in the Sky--Air National Guard Intelligence,
            Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Systems and Support
        The Air National Guard's Intelligence, Surveillance, and
    Reconnaissance personnel and systems play an increasingly important
    role in the defense of our nation. Air Guard men and women are
    essential to support Global Hawk, Predator, and U-2 collection
    missions.
        Due to a significant increase in Air Force mission requirements,
    the Air Guard continues to expand its intelligence collection and
    production capability. The Air Guard has also expanded its imagery
    intelligence capability through the use of Eagle Vision, which is a
    deployable commercial imagery downlink and exploitation system. This
    system provides valuable support to aircrew mission planning and
    targeting, as well as imagery support to natural disasters and
    terrorism.
        Other developing Air Force capabilities entrusted to the Air
    National Guard include the F-16 Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System
    and the C-130 SCATHE VIEW tactical imagery collection system. The
    Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System will be improved to provide
    near-real-time support to warfighter ``kill-chain'' operations in day-
    night, all weather conditions. SCATHE VIEW provides a near-real-time
    imaging capability to support humanitarian relief and non-combatant
    evacuation operations. To support signal intelligence collection
    requirements, the Air Guard continues to aggressively upgrade the
    SENIOR SCOUT platform. SENIOR SCOUT remains the primary collection
    asset to support the nation's war on drugs and the Global War on
    Terrorism in the southern hemisphere.
    Comprehensive and Realistic Combat Training--An Asymmetric Advantage
        The National Guard Bureau has a fundamental responsibility to
    ensure that the men and women of the Air Guard are properly trained to
    meet the challenges they will face to protect and defend this country.
    This can be done through the effective development and management of
    special use airspace and ranges. To support this training requirement,
    the Air Guard is responsible for 14 air-to-ground bombing ranges, four
    Combat Readiness Training Centers, and the Air Guard Special Use
    Airspace infrastructure.
        To ensure that our units remain ready and relevant, they must have
    access to adequate training airspace and ranges that meet the demands
    of evolving operational requirements. The National and Regional
    Airspace and Range Councils, co-chaired by both the Air Guard and the
    Air Force, continue to identify and resolve airspace and range issues
    that affect combat capability and are engaged with the Federal Aviation
    Administration in the redesign of the National Airspace System.
        The four Combat Readiness Training Centers provide an integrated,
    year-round, realistic training environment (airspace, ranges, systems,
    facilities, and equipment), which enables military units to enhance
    their combat capability at a deployed, combat-oriented operating base
    and provide training opportunities that cannot be effectively
    accomplished at the home station. As such, these centers are ideal
    assets for the Joint National Training Capability. The centers offer an
    effective mix of live, virtual and constructive simulation training.
    The Air National Guard continues to pursue National Training Capability
    certification for these centers and ranges.
        It is imperative to the warfighter that the Air Guard maintains its
    training superiority. As the warfighting transformation and joint
    operational requirements evolve, it is essential that the airspace and
    range infrastructure be available to support that training. There are
    challenges. The Air National Guard has a shortfall in electronic
    warfare training. To keep our Citizen-Airmen trained to the razor's
    edge, we must have the Joint Threat Emitter to simulate the various
    surface to air missile and anti-aircraft artillery threats that any
    future conflict might present.

      TRANSFORMATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: RELEVANT NOW . . . AND IN THE
                                     FUTURE

    Supporting a ``Capabilities Based'' Military Force
        The Air National Guard is a solid partner with the Air Force, the
    Air Force Reserve, and the Department of Defense. The Defense
    Department's priority is Transformation . . . and therefore it is the
    priority of the active services and the reserve components.
        The Air Force is pursuing innovative organizational constructs and
    personnel policies to meld the various components into a single,
    unified force. Ongoing shifts in global conflict and U.S. strategy
    suggest an increasing attention to activities such as homeland defense,
    nation-building, and others that may require different mixes of
    capability that are not necessarily resident at sufficient levels in
    the active component. This ``Future Total Force'' integration will
    create efficiencies, cut costs, ensure stability, retain invaluable
    human capital, and, above all, increase our combat capabilities.
        One example of this transformational initiative is the proposed
    movement of Air National Guard manpower to Langley AFB, an active duty
    base, from Richmond, an Air National Guard base, with the intent of
    leveraging the high experience of Guard personnel to improve the combat
    capability for the active force.
        Another transformation effort is to ``integrate,'' where sensible,
    units from two or more components into a single wing with a single
    commander. Active, Guard, and Reserve personnel share the same
    facilities and equipment, and together, execute the same mission. This
    is a level of integration unmatched in any of the Services.
    Emerging Missions
        The Air National Guard is working to embed new and innovative
    capabilities into the force. These include: Predator unit equipped and
    associate, Global Hawk, Deployable Ground Stations/Distributed Common
    Ground System, F-15 Aggressor, C-130 Flying Training, Cryptological and
    Linguist Training, Expeditionary Combat Support, as well as support to
    Joint Forces with Battlefield Airmen, Air Operations Centers,
    Warfighting Headquarters, Space Control and Operations.
        On November 25, 2004, the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of
    Staff of the Air Force outlined a Total Force vision for Air Guard
    Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance by calling for the
    standup of two MQ-1 Predator flying units in Texas and Arizona by June
    2006 to help fill worldwide Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target
    Acquisition requirements. Air Guard Predator operations will first fill
    worldwide theater requirements, but will also likely evolve into
    providing direct defense for the Homeland in conjunction with the
    Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Northern Command.
        Adoption of emerging missions by Air National Guard units promotes
    all three National Guard priorities for the future. The addition of new
    weapons systems to the Air Guard provides essential capabilities that
    enable homeland defense and homeland security missions. New systems
    including RQ/MQ-1 Predator, and RQ-4 Global Hawk, provide intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities to Air National Guard
    forces. Other capabilities, such as air operations center support, will
    provide ready experience in planning, command and control, and mission
    leadership that will be invaluable in federal/state mission capable
    units.
    Modernizing for the Future
        The Air National Guard modernization program is a capabilities-
    based effort to keep the forces in the field relevant, reliable and
    ready for any missions tasked by the state or federal authorities. As a
    framework for prioritization, the modernization program is segmented
    into three time frames: short-term, the current and next year's Defense
    budget; medium-term, out to fiscal year 2015; and long-term, out to
    fiscal year 2025 and beyond.
        The Air National Guard remains an equal partner with the Air and
    Space Expeditionary Forces that are tasked to meet the future
    challenges and missions. Budget constraints require the Air Guard to
    maximize combat capability for every dollar spent. The Air National
    Guard includes all aircraft, ground command and control systems, and
    training and simulation systems in this modernization effort. The
    requirements necessary to focus this effort must be grounded in clearly
    defined combat capabilities and missions.
        The following summarizes the Air National Guard's force posture by
    weapons system:
        The E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System remains a
    highly coveted asset by all combatant commanders. It provides wide
    theater surveillance of ground moving targets operated by the first-
    ever blended wing of Air National Guard, Air Force and Army, the 116th
    Air Control Wing, at Robins AFB, Ga. Keeping the system modernized
    while maintaining the current high Operations Tempo in combat theaters
    will be a continuing challenge in the future. The most urgent
    modernization needs for the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar
    System include re-engining, radar upgrades, installation of the Traffic
    Alert Collision Avoidance System, and integration of a self-protection
    suite.
        The A-10 remains the only Air Force fighter/attack aircraft
    operating out of Afghanistan today. Six Air Guard squadrons account for
    38 percent of combat-coded A-10s in the Combat Air Force. The A-10 is
    undergoing modification to modernize the cockpit, provide a data link,
    improve targeting pod integration, and add Joint Direct Attack
    Munitions capability. Future improvements to the A-10 include a SATCOM
    radio, an updated Lightweight Airborne Recovery System for combat
    search and rescue missions, and improved threat detection. Recent
    conflicts highlighted a thrust performance deficiency making upgrading
    the TF-34-100A engine a priority.
        Air National Guard F-16s continued to provide crucial combat
    capabilities during 2005 in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring
    Freedom and Operation Noble Eagle. The Block 25/30/32 F-16 continued
    its modernization program by fielding the Commercial Central Interface
    Unit, Color Multi-Function Displays and AIM-9X while pursuing future
    integration of the Radar Modernized Programmable Signal Processor,
    Advanced Identification Friend or Foe, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing
    System and the smart triple ejector rack. The Block 52 F-16s are nearly
    finished with their Common Configuration Implementation Program that
    brought these systems and LINK16 capabilities to their fleet. Air Guard
    Block 42 F-16s will begin their common configuration upgrades later
    this year.
        The F-15 modernization includes the continued installation of the
    BOL Infrared countermeasures improvements system, continued delivery of
    upgraded engine kits and installation of the Multifunctional
    Information Distribution System Fighter Data Link. The next upgrades
    include the retrofit of a permanent night vision cockpit lighting
    system, continued integration and purchase of the Joint Helmet Mounted
    Cueing System, and the delivery of the replacement Identify Friend or
    Foe system.
        The HC-130 is completing installation of the Forward Looking
    Infrared system, an essential capability during combat rescue
    operations. The HC-130 starts integration and installation of the Large
    Aircraft Infrared Counter Measure system, increasing survivability in
    face of the ever-increasing threat from hand-held missiles.
        The HH-60 program started installation of the new M3M .50 caliber
    door gun, replaced personal equipment for the pararescue jumpers with
    state-of-the-art weapons and technologies. The initiation of the HH-60
    replacement program will begin to slow any further modernization.
        C-130 enhancements included the multi-command Avionics
    Modernization Program which upgraded nearly 500 aircraft to a modern,
    more sustainable cockpit. Additionally, the Air National Guard
    continued acquisition of the AN/APN-241 Low Power Color Radar,
    continued installation of the Night Vision Imaging System, and the Air
    National Guard-driven development of Scathe View to include various
    technological spin-offs having application in a myriad of civilian and
    military efforts. Other Air Guard programs include the AN/AAQ-24 (V)
    Directional Infrared Countermeasures System, propeller upgrades like
    the Electronic Propeller Control System and NP2000 eight-bladed
    propeller, and a second generation, upgraded Modular Airborne Fire
    Fighting System. Additionally, the Air National Guard partnered with
    the Air Force for the first multiyear buy of the new C-130J aircraft to
    replace the aging C-130E fleet.
        The KC-135 weapons system completed the installation of the cockpit
    upgrade and continued the engine upgrades to the R-model. The KC-135
    continued to be the air bridge for the multiple combat deployments
    across the globe. Keeping the aging fleet modernized will continue to
    challenge the Air National Guard as the refueling operations evolve to
    meet the next mission.
        The Air National Guard Modernization Program is key in continuing
    to field a relevant combat capability, ensuring dominance of American
    air power for the next 15 to 20 years. We must sustain an open and
    honest dialogue from the warfighter through Congress, in order to
    maximize the investment of precious and limited resources.
    Force Development
        Our personnel are our greatest asset and force multiplier. To
    capitalize on their talents, the Air National Guard has implemented a
    new force development structure to get the right people in the right
    job, at the right time, with the right skills, knowledge and
    experience. We are taking a deliberate approach to develop officers,
    enlisted, and civilians by combining focused assignments with education
    and training opportunities to prepare our people to meet the Air
    National Guard needs. Through targeted education, training, and
    mission-related experience, we will develop professional Airmen into
    joint force warriors with the skills needed across all levels of
    conflict. This is at the ``heart'' of our Officer and Enlisted Force
    Development plans. These plans are a critical communication tool to
    capture the member's ``career'' development ideas, desired career path
    choices, assignment, and developmental education preferences. The
    bottom-line of our Force Development efforts is to provide an effects-
    and competency-based development process by connecting the depth of
    expertise in the individual's primary career field with the appropriate
    education, training, and experience. The desired effect is to produce
    more capable and diversified leaders.
        Recruiting quality applicants and taking care of our people will be
    key in maintaining the end strength numbers needed to accomplish our
    HLD missions, our successful transformation, and our support to the war
    fighter. Air National Guard retention remains at an all-time high.
    However, recruiting is a challenge, as the parents, teachers, and
    counselors now play a larger role in their child's decision to join the
    military. Therefore, the Air National Guard expanded funding of thirty
    eight storefront recruiting offices. These offices offer a less
    imposing sales environment than the traditional flying wing location.
        As part of the Total Force, the Air National Guard realizes it is
    essential that we transform into an effects-based, efficient provider
    of human combat capability for our warfighters, partners, and our
    Nation. Our Vision and Strategic Plan sets the transformational flight-
    path for the personnel community in support of the Air Expeditionary
    Force, security for the homeland, our states' missions, and roles in
    the community. Furthermore, we will advance our continued commitment to
    a diverse Air National Guard, not just in gender and ethnicity, but in
    thought, creativity, education, culture, and problem-solving
    capabilities.
    Information Networking for the Total Force
        The Air National Guard Enterprise Network is critical to the
    successful transmission of information within a unit, between units,
    and among the various states. We are making progress towards
    modernizing our nationwide information technology network that serves a
    vital role in homeland security and national defense. A healthy and
    robust network for reliable, available and secure information
    technology is essential to federal and state authorities in their
    ability to exercise command and control of information resources that
    potentially could impact their various constituencies.
        Greater emphasis must be placed on maturing the Air National Guard
    Enterprise Network. The rapidly changing hardware and software
    requirements of our warfighting and combat support functions come with
    a significant cost to upgrade and maintain a fully capable Information
    Technology network. The Air Guard network has typically been supported
    at the same level it was during the 1990s. Without a significant
    infusion of resources to acquire new technology, our ability to
    accomplish other missions will suffer. Modernization of the Air
    National Guard Enterprise Network will enhance interoperability with
    other federal and state agencies.

                                    SUMMARY

        The Air National Guard will continue to defend the nation in the
    War on Terrorism while transforming for the future. We will do this
    across the full spectrum of operations in both the Expeditionary and
    Homeland Defense missions. The Air National Guard will also continue to
    draw upon our militia culture and linkage to the community as we
    execute our multiple missions and roles. The men and women of the Air
    Guard are currently serving proudly in the far corners of the globe--
    and here at home--and will continue to do so with distinction.
        Today's guardsmen and women are your doctors, lawyers, police
    officers, cooks, teachers, and factory workers, white and blue-collar
    workers. They are your civilians in peace; Airmen in war--we guard
    America's skies.

    MAJOR GENERAL TERRY L. SCHERLING, DIRECTOR OF THE JOINT STAFF NATIONAL
                                  GUARD BUREAU

                              JOINT STAFF OVERVIEW

        During 2005, the National Guard's pursuit of mission objectives
    once again proved to be a remarkable accomplishment. Support for
    Homeland Defense, the Warfighter, and Transformation guided our
    ambitious initiatives to serve our nation and our communities over the
    entire spectrum of domestic and overseas operations.
        Although the National Guard continued to be essential to our
    nation's success in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom,
    Guard support to the warfight is not limited to our role on the
    battlefield. We demonstrate our ability to support the warfight
    anytime, anywhere, through dynamic evolutions to our State Partnership
    Program, Family Programs, and Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve
    Program. Our State Partnership Program supports homeland security by
    helping to develop dependable collaborative partners for the United
    States. Since our last posture statement, we accomplished 425 events
    between partner states and foreign nations, and added two new
    partnerships: Rhode Island with the Bahamas and Ohio with Serbia and
    Montenegro. We expect to add another six partnerships in fiscal year
    2007. Not since World War II have so many Guard members been deployed
    to so many places for such extended periods. Our Family and Employer
    Support programs continue to serve as a foundation to provide relevant
    and consistent support to our Soldiers, Airmen, families, employers,
    and communities during all phases of the deployment process.
        Our progress in homeland defense may be even more remarkable. More
    than 2,500 National Guard members provided consistent and reliable
    counterdrug support to the nation's law enforcement agencies.
    Initiatives are underway to leverage our 16 years of counterdrug
    experience and apply it to overseas drug trafficking problems in the
    Middle East. In addition to noted successes in our counterdrug program,
    we have continued to enhance all of our homeland defense capabilities.
    The Department of Defense acknowledged our Mission Assurance Assessment
    as essential to protect the nation's critical infrastructure. Our
    Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, recognized for their
    specialized expertise and rapid response times, have been expanded to
    55 full-time teams across the nation. We are now focusing on our 12
    Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosive
    Enhanced Response Force Packages as critical assets to the national
    response for the Global War on Terrorism.
        These and other National Guard capabilities were brought to bear
    frequently in 2005 in support of civil authorities by responding to
    national events, floods, wildfires, hurricanes and more. During the
    record 2005-hurricane season, the National Guard deployed over 50,000
    members in response to Hurricane Katrina alone, saving over 17,000
    lives, providing millions of meals and liters of water, and ensuring
    safety and security to numerous communities. Some regarded our response
    as one of our ``finest hours.''
        Yet, we have never rested on our laurels. We continue to transform.
    The Joint Combined State Strategic Plan is aiding our ability to plan
    for domestic operations, helping the National Guard, state governors,
    and U.S. Combatant Commanders assess force capabilities for HLS and
    HLD. The Department of Defense National Security Personnel System will
    apply to the 50,000-member National Guard Military Technician
    workforce, transforming the way our civilian personnel system works. We
    implemented the Joint Continental United States Communication Support
    Environment to address requirements for collaborative information
    sharing and other Command, Control, Communications, and Computer
    capabilities that can support HLS and HLD stakeholders. Our Joint
    Training Centers continue to evolve through continuous and in-depth
    analysis of lessons learned and homeland security training
    requirements.
        This past year the National Guard provided a remarkable
    demonstration of how effectively we can and do execute our state and
    federal missions simultaneously. The National Guard is always ready,
    always there.

                       HOMELAND DEFENSE: HERE AND ABROAD

        ``In times of crisis, our nation depends on the courage and
    determination of the Guard.''    President Bush, August 2005.
    National Guard Reaction Force
        The National Guard has over 369 years of experience in responding
    to both the federal government's warfighting requirements, and the
    needs of the states to protect critical infrastructure and ensure the
    safety of our local communities. To improve the capability of the
    states to rapidly respond to threats against the critical
    infrastructure within our borders, the Chief of the National Guard
    Bureau has asked the Adjutants General of the states, territories and
    Commanding General, District of Columbia to identify and develop a
    Rapid Reaction Force capability. The goal is a trained and ready
    National Guard force available to the governor on short notice, capable
    of responding in support of local and state governments and, when
    required, the Department of Defense. The National Guard Bureau is
    working with both Northern and Pacific commands to ensure that National
    Guard capabilities are understood and incorporated into their response
    plans.
    Critical Infrastructure Program--Mission Assurance Assessment (MAA)
        During the past year, the National Guard provided support to the
    country by responding to severe weather, wild fires, several National
    Special Security Events and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The year's
    events also guided the National Guard's preparations to implement MAA.
    This is a National Guard Homeland Defense prototype program in which
    teams of National Guard Soldiers or Airmen are trained to conduct
    vulnerability assessments of Department of Defense critical
    infrastructure in order to prevent or deter attacks and plan emergency
    response in case of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. The program
    is designed to educate civilian agencies in basic force protection and
    emergency response; develop relationships between first responders,
    owners of critical infrastructure, and National Guard planners in the
    states; and to deploy traditional National Guard forces in a timely
    fashion to protect the nation's critical infrastructure. In developing
    this concept, National Guard Bureau has worked with the Office of the
    Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and the Joint Staff
    to establish policies and standards. During 2005, the National Guard
    trained six Critical Infrastructure Program--Mission Assurance
    Assessment Detachments to conduct vulnerability assessments. The
    National Guard plans to train four additional detachments in 2006 to
    cover the four remaining Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions.
    The MAA teams' pre-crisis preparatory work facilitates the National
    Guard in continuing its time-honored tradition of preventing attacks,
    protecting and responding when necessary in defense of America at a
    moment's notice.
    Support to Civil Authorities
        In 2005, the National Guard provided unprecedented support to
    federal, state, and local authorities, providing assistance during
    natural and manmade disasters, and supporting HLS and HLD operations.
    National Guard forces performed HLS missions protecting airports,
    nuclear power plants, domestic water supplies, bridges, tunnels,
    military assets and more. By the end of the year, the Guard expended
    over one million man-days of support in assistance to civilian
    authorities at the local, state and federal level.
        Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and, to a lesser degree, Wilma,
    affected states across the South. The National Guard provided
    assistance in the form of humanitarian relief operations that included
    construction, security, communications, aviation, medical,
    transportation, law enforcement support, lodging, search and rescue,
    debris removal, and relief supply distribution. Liaison officers sent
    to the affected areas assisted with coordination of air and ground
    transportation ensuring expeditious delivery of desperately needed
    equipment and supplies. Working closely with the governors of the
    affected states and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Guard
    proved instrumental in providing support to the beleaguered citizens
    and in reestablishing security of the affected areas.
    Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams
        Eleven additional National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil
    Support Teams (CST) were authorized in 2005, enhancing our ability to
    respond to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield
    explosive events. There are now 55 authorized teams. Since September
    11, 2001 the 34 existing certified teams have been fully engaged in
    planning, training, and operations in support of local and state
    emergency responders. The remaining 21 teams are progressing rapidly
    toward certification. These are highly trained and skilled, full-time
    teams, established to provide specialized expertise and technical
    assistance to an incident commander.
        Their role in support of the incident commander is to ``assess,
    assist, advise, and facilitate follow-on forces.'' State governors,
    through their respective Adjutant General, have operational command and
    control of the teams. The National Guard Bureau provides logistical
    support, standardized operational procedures, and operational
    coordination to facilitate the employment of the teams and ensure back-
    up capability to states currently without a certified team.
        2005 was a busy operational year for our teams. They assisted
    emergency responders throughout the country. 18 CSTs provided personnel
    and equipment that were vital to the National Guard response to
    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These teams conducted assessments of
    contamination levels remaining after the floodwaters receded. They
    provided critical communications and consequence management support to
    local, state, and federal agencies. Most importantly, they provided
    advice and assistance to the local incident commanders that
    dramatically impacted the recovery effort.
    Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosive
            Enhanced Response Force Package
        To enhance the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
    high-yield explosive response capability of the National Guard, 12
    States were selected to establish a task force comprised of existing
    Army and Air National Guard units, with Congress authorizing an
    additional five in the fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriation. The task
    force is designed to provide a regional capability to locate and
    extract victims from a contaminated environment, perform medical triage
    and treatment, and conduct personnel decontamination in response to a
    weapon of mass destruction event. The units that form these task forces
    are provided additional equipment and specialized training, which allow
    the Soldiers and Airmen to operate in a weapon of mass destruction
    environment. Known as a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear,
    and high-yield explosive Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP), each
    task force operates within the Incident Command System and provides
    support when requested through the Emergency Management System. Each
    task force works in coordination with U.S. Northern Command, U.S.
    Pacific Command and other military forces and commands as part of the
    overall national response of local, state, and federal assets. Each
    CERFP has a regional responsibility as well as the capability to
    respond to major chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-
    yield explosive incidents anywhere within the United States or
    worldwide as directed by national command authorities. This capability
    augments the CST and provides a task force-oriented structure that will
    respond to an incident on short notice. While the exact numbers are not
    known, it is estimated that the Texas National Guard CERFP medical
    element treated over 14,000 patients from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
    through late September.
        During 2005, 11 of the 12 teams completed National Fire Protection
    Association certified specialized training in confined space/collapsed
    structure operations. The twelfth is projected to complete search and
    extraction training during 2006.
    National Special Security Events
        The Department of Homeland Security designates certain high-
    visibility events that require an increased security presence as
    National Security Special Events. In 2004 and 2005, the G8 Summit, the
    Democratic National Convention, the Republican National Convention,
    President Ronald Reagan's funeral, and the Presidential Inauguration
    received such designation.
        The National Guard Bureau Joint Intelligence Division, in
    coordination with the Joint Force Headquarters--State intelligence
    offices, provided support to each event. Support missions included
    traffic control-point operations, a civil disturbance reaction force,
    aviation and medical evacuation support, a chemical support team, and
    support to the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department and
    the U.S. Secret Service for crowd screening. Army and Air National
    Guard personnel from several surrounding States were employed for these
    missions.
    Intelligence for Homeland Security
        The National Guard Bureau has honed partnerships with U.S. Northern
    Command, Department of Homeland Security, Joint Force Headquarters--
    State, and national agencies to enhance information sharing. We are
    aggressively engaged in seeking creative ways for the National Guard's
    joint structure's capabilities to support U.S. Northern Command's
    requirements for situational awareness of homeland security activities
    within the 54 states, territories, and District of Columbia. As part of
    the homeland security effort, the National Guard Bureau is exploring
    working relationships with federal agencies such as the Defense
    Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security
    Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and National Geospatial
    Intelligence Agency.

                    SUPPORT THE WARFIGHTER ANYTIME, ANYWHERE

    State Partnership Program
        The State Partnership Program is the National Guard's preeminent
    activity supporting Regional Combatant Commanders' Theater Security
    Cooperation. This program demonstrates the distinct role and capability
    a citizen-militia can provide a country's civilian leadership to
    transform their military and society. The program partners U.S. states
    with foreign nations to promote and enhance bilateral relations. It
    supports Homeland Defense by nurturing dependable collaborative
    partners for coalition operations in support of Secretary Rumsfeld's
    Concepts of Global Engagement and the Global War on Terrorism.
        The program reflects an evolving international affairs mission for
    the National Guard. It promotes regional stability and civil-military
    relationships in support of U.S. policy objectives. State partners
    actively participate in many and varied engagement activities including
    bilateral familiarization and training events, exercises, fellowship-
    style internships and civic leader visits. All activities are
    coordinated through the theater Combatant Commanders and the U.S.
    ambassadors' country teams, and other agencies as appropriate, to
    ensure that National Guard support meets both U.S. and country
    objectives. Since our last Posture Statement, there have been over 425
    events involving U.S. states and their foreign partners.
        Since the last Posture Statement, two new partnerships were
    formed--Rhode Island/Bahamas and Ohio/Serbia and Montenegro. Nigeria
    has formally requested a partnership. Identification of a partner state
    is in progress. Several countries have initiated the formal process of
    requesting a partnership.
        This program is challenged to adapt to rapidly changing
    international conditions and events. Mature partnerships demand careful
    consideration of the appropriate partnership role and mission. The
    program's expansion in emerging geographic regions will require
    insightful selection of partner states, roles and missions and the
    appropriate path to promote political, military and social stability in
    partner countries while making the best use of National Guard
    resources. Expansion and integration in the Horn of Africa and the
    Pacific Rim are areas of challenge for our program. An ongoing
    challenge is to ensure states receive optimal support and the partner
    countries reap the greatest benefit.
        NGB is working to establish and formalize Foreign Affairs and
    Bilateral Affairs Officer positions and training with the services and
    the combatant commanders, Ambassadors and partner countries. These are
    vital initiatives to support expansion of the roles and missions of the
    program.
        In fiscal year 2007 and beyond, working with the geographic
    combatant commanders, we expect to take the program to the next level
    of security cooperation. We look for increased interaction at the
    action officer/troop level. The partner countries are looking for more
    hands on engagement events, unit exchanges, and exercises as well as
    working with their partner states during actual operations. A prime
    example is the liaison support given by Alaska to their partner state,
    Mongolia, when they deployed troops to Iraq. The National Guard seeks
    to satisfy this desire for deeper relationships while increasing the
    number of partnerships. In 2007, we can potentially add six
    partnerships.
    National Guard Family Program
        The National Guard Bureau Family Program is a Joint Force
    initiative that serves as the foundation for support to Army and Air
    National Guard family members. As the Guard faces an unprecedented
    increase in military activity and extended deployments, the highest
    priority of the National Guard Family Program is to provide families
    with the assistance to cope with mobilization, deployment, reunion, and
    reintegration.
        Not since World War II have so many Guard members been deployed to
    so many places for such extended periods. The role and support of the
    family is critical to success with these missions. The National Guard
    Family Program developed an extensive infrastructure to support and
    assist families during all phases of the deployment process. There are
    more than 400 National Guard Family Assistance Centers located
    throughout the 54 states, territories and the District of Columbia.
    These centers provide information, referral, and assistance with
    anything that families need during a deployment. Most importantly,
    these centers and these services are also available to any military
    family member from any branch or component of the Armed Forces.
        The State Family Program Directors and Air Guard Wing Family
    Program coordinators are the program's primary resources for providing
    on-the-ground family readiness support to commanders, Soldiers, Airmen,
    and their families. The National Guard Bureau Family Program office
    provides support to program directors and coordinators through
    information-sharing, training, volunteer management, workshops,
    newsletters, family events, and youth development programs, among other
    services. To enhance this support, the National Guard Family Program,
    through the Outreach and Partnership program, is leveraging federal,
    state, and local government agency resources and forming strategic
    partnerships with veteran, volunteer, and private organizations.
        The greatest challenge lies in awareness and communication. The
    feedback we receive indicates that many family members are unaware of
    the many resources available to them during a period of active duty or
    deployment. Our primary goals are to increase the level of awareness
    and participation with existing family resources, and to improve
    overall mission readiness and retention by giving our warfighters the
    peace of mind of knowing that their families are well cared for.
    Veterans' Affairs
        Sustained mobilization of the National Guard since 9/11 has
    resulted in a larger number of Guard members eligible for entitlements
    available through the Department of Veterans Affairs. Last year, the
    Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the Department of Veterans Affairs
    Under Secretary for Health and Under Secretary for Benefits signed a
    memorandum of agreement to establish a Veterans Affairs program to
    improve the delivery of benefits to returning Soldiers and ensure a
    seamless transition to veteran status. The agreement resulted in the
    appointment of a permanent liaison at the National Guard Bureau and at
    the Department of Veterans Affairs, and assignment of a state benefits
    advisor in each of the 54 Joint Force Headquarters--State. The benefits
    advisors coordinate the entitlement needs of members at the state level
    with the Department of Veterans Affairs, other veterans' service
    organizations and community representatives. This new program builds
    upon the strength and success of the National Guard Family Program and
    capitalizes on the services already provided by the Department of
    Defense.
    Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve
        The National Guard and Reserve continue to be full partners in a
    fully integrated Total Force. This means our National Guard and Reserve
    service members will spend more time away from the workplace defending
    and preserving our nation. Employers have become inextricably linked to
    a strong national defense as they share this precious manpower
    resource. The basic mission of the Employer Support of the Guard and
    Reserve (ESGR) program is to gain and maintain support from all public
    and private employers for the men and women of the National Guard and
    Reserve.
        A nationwide network of local employer support volunteers is
    organized into ESGR committees within each state, the District of
    Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In this way,
    employer support programs are available to all employers, large and
    small, in cities and towns throughout our country. Today, nearly 3,000
    volunteers serve on local ESGR committees. With resources and support
    provided by the national office and the National Guard Bureau, the 54
    ESGR committees conduct Employer Support and Outreach programs,
    including information opportunities for employers, ombudsman services,
    and recognition of employers whose human resource policies support and
    encourage participation in the National Guard and Reserve. In view of
    the importance of employer support to the retention of quality men and
    women in the National Guard and Reserve, and in recognition of the
    critical contributions from local committees, the National Guard Bureau
    provides full time assistance and liaison support to the Joint Forces
    Headquarters--State and the 54 ESGR committees.
        The National Guard Bureau remains committed to the development of
    strategic partnerships with government agencies, veterans service
    organizations and public sector employers to ensure employment
    opportunities for our redeploying service members with an emphasis on
    our disabled veterans. One of the most important tasks our country
    faces is ensuring that our men and women in uniform are fully
    integrated into the civilian workforce when they return from service to
    our country.
    Youth ChalleNGe Program
        The award-winning National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program is a
    community-based program that leads trains and mentors at-risk youth at
    30 program sites throughout the country to become productive citizens
    in America's future. As the second largest mentoring program in the
    nation, the ChalleNGe program is coeducational and consists of a five-
    month ``quasi-military'' residential phase and a one-year post-
    residential mentoring phase. A cadet must be a volunteer, between 16
    and 18 years of age, drug free, not in trouble with the law, unemployed
    or a high school dropout.
        The program has served as a national model since 1993 and the 25
    states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico that offer the program
    graduated more than 55,800 young men and women. Participants graduate
    from the program equipped with the values, skills, education, and self-
    discipline necessary to succeed as adults in society. Significantly,
    although many ChalleNGe candidates are from at-risk populations, over
    70 percent of ChalleNGe graduates have attained either a General
    Equivalency Diploma or a high school diploma. Furthermore,
    approximately 20 percent of all graduates choose to enter military
    service upon graduation.
    The National Guard Counterdrug Program
        For over 16 years, the National Guard Counterdrug program has
    assisted more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies in protecting the
    American homeland from significant national security threats. The
    Guard's operations assist these agencies in obstructing the
    importation, manufacture, and distribution of illegal drugs; and by
    supporting community based drug demand reduction programs. The program
    also supports the U.S. Northern and Southern Command combatant
    commanders. Given the growing link between drugs and terrorism, the
    National Guard's program continues to complement America's homeland
    security efforts. Although primarily a domestic program, initiatives
    are underway to leverage the National Guard's years of domestic
    counterdrug experience and apply it to overseas drug trafficking
    problems in the Middle East.
        This National Guard Bureau program, as executed by the 54 states
    and territories, through their respective governors' Counterdrug plan,
    supports the Office of National Drug Control Policy strategies. Support
    for these strategies is embedded within six general mission categories
    including: program management; technical support; general support;
    counterdrug related training; reconnaissance and observation; and drug
    demand reduction support. In 2005, approximately 2,475 National Guard
    personnel provided counterdrug support to law enforcement agencies and
    continued to remain ready, reliable, and relevant for their wartime
    mission by actively participating in their unit of assignment through
    weekend drill, annual training, and individual Soldier and Airman
    professional development.
        In fiscal year 2005, National Guard support efforts led to 61,125
    arrests and assisted law enforcement agencies in seizing nearly 2.4
    million pounds of illegal drugs, eradicating over two million marijuana
    plants, and confiscating over 4.5 million pills. Also, as a result of
    this joint effort, 11,490 weapons, 4,357 vehicles and more than $213
    million in cash were seized.
        In addition to counterdrug support operations, Air and Army
    National Guard aviation assets supported HLD and HLS operations as part
    of a joint task force along the northern border during Operation Winter
    Freeze. The success of that operation was to a great degree directly
    related to the program personnel's long-standing experience with law
    enforcement agencies.
        During rescue and recovery operations in support of Hurricane
    Katrina, our program played a major role. Thirty-five aircraft deployed
    to the Gulf Coast from 25 different states. These aircraft performed
    search and rescue operations and providing valuable photographic and
    infrared reconnaissance to assist officials in determining damage
    levels of the levees and the surrounding communities. In addition, the
    program organized Task Force Counterdrug Light Assault Vehicle, a task
    force comprised National Guard Soldiers and Airmen with Light Assault
    Vehicles from Nebraska, Oregon, California, Tennessee, and Michigan.
    These vehicles, which have an amphibious capability not commonly found
    in Guard units but critically needed in the flooding following Katrina,
    logged more than 800 hours and 6,000 miles and performed over 600
    rescues.

                      TRANSFORMATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

    Transformation to a Joint National Guard Bureau
        The National Guard Bureau crafts the strategies that will result in
    the implementation of the Secretary of Defense's guidance to improve
    National Guard relevancy and support to the War on Terrorism, Homeland
    Defense and Homeland Security. The National Guard Bureau has presented
    an updated concept and implementation plan to achieve formal
    recognition as a joint activity of the Department of Defense to the
    services, a step that would formally establish the National Guard
    Bureau as the Joint National Guard Bureau.
    Joint Force Headquarters--State
        The Joint Force Headquarters--State were established
    (provisionally) in October, 2003 in each of the 50 states, the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two U.S. Territories and the District of
    Columbia, to reorganize the previously separate Army National Guard and
    Air National Guard headquarters into a joint activity that exercises
    command and control over all assigned, attached or operationally
    aligned forces. These were formed in compliance with guidance from the
    Secretary of Defense to forge new relationships that are more relevant
    to the current environment between National Guard Bureau, the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff with a primary focus on
    improving Department of Defense access to National Guard capabilities.
    The Services and the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have
    formerly approved the mission statement, and a Joint Operations Center
    is now operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in each Joint Force
    Headquarters--State.
        All Joint Force Headquarters--State were directly involved in
    coordinating support for various disasters and emergencies this year to
    include the recovery efforts following the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes.
    Progress continues toward the goal of 54 fully operational Joint Force
    Headquarters--State by September of 2006. ``Core'' Joint Mission
    Essential Task Lists were customized to the task conditions and
    standards necessary for each particular state, approved by the
    respective Adjutant General, and loaded into the Joint Force
    Headquarters--State Joint Training Plan. Draft Joint Training Plans are
    complete for all Joint Force Headquarters--State to plan for, and
    capture, joint training during exercises and real-world events. Many of
    these headquarters' have already participated in Vigilant Shield and
    Vigilant Guard homeland defense exercises. The remaining states are
    scheduled for these exercises in 2006-2007.
    Joint Combined State Strategic Plan
        The Joint Combined State Strategic Plan is designed to categorize,
    assess, and forecast future capabilities to support Joint Domestic
    National Guard operations by providing the ability to track and assess
    ten joint core capabilities needed to support Homeland Defense and
    Homeland Security. They are: command and control, Civil Support Teams,
    maintenance, aviation/airlift, engineer, medical, communications,
    transportation, security, and logistics. This plan serves as both a
    strategic tool and as an operational planning tool for the governor and
    U.S. combatant commands. This program's potential for future
    development coupled with its ability to track these vital competencies
    makes the plan a decisive tool for continuing transformation of the
    National Guard.
        Recent Hurricane Katrina relief efforts highlight the importance of
    having this information readily available. The National Guard was able
    to identify and mobilize units based on current availability and
    specific functional capability. In addition, individual states have
    used the state based joint combined strategic plan to render support to
    civil authorities during life threatening snowstorms and severe
    flooding this past winter. As a dynamic program, the plan is undergoing
    initiative enhancements to enable identification of additional,
    individual state-specific capabilities. This will allow for tracking
    specific situational response capabilities to hurricanes, tornadoes,
    floods, mass casualties, and fires among others at the state and
    regional level.
    Joint Continental United States (CONUS) Communications Support
            Environment (JCCSE)
        U.S. Northern Command and the National Guard Bureau jointly
    developed the JCCSE construct to address requirements for collaborative
    information sharing and other command, control, communications, and
    computer (C4) systems capabilities in the post 9/11 Homeland Defense
    and Defense Support to Civil mission environment. The detailed, long-
    term vision for the JCCSE is outlined in the joint U.S. Northern
    Command and National Guard Bureau document, Joint CONUS Communications
    Support Environment (JCCSE) Concept for Joint C4, October 15, 2005,
    which defines JCCSE as, ``. . . the vital organizations and net-centric
    information technology capabilities required by the National Guard to
    support U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Strategic
    Command, U.S. Joint Forces Command, and other DOD and non-DOD partners
    by extending interagency and intergovernmental trusted information
    sharing and collaboration capabilities from the national level to the
    state and territory and local levels, and to any incident site
    throughout the United States and its territories.''
        JCCSE is an umbrella construct that involves organizational and
    process development as well as requisite supporting enhancements to
    existing National Guard information technology capabilities. Due to the
    ongoing threats to the U.S. homeland in the post 9/11 environment, NGB
    took preemptive action to establish initial capabilities--the Interim
    Satellite Incident Site Communications Set (ISISCS)--that are
    geographically dispersed throughout the CONUS, as well as Hawaii, and
    have proven invaluable in real world operations in support of
    Department of Defense security missions and for disaster response
    operations related to Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, and Rita. When fully
    implemented, JCCSE will provide robust state-federal net work
    connectivity as well as national level management and integration of
    long haul, tactical, and other DOD capabilities related to C4 systems.
    JCCSE will provide U.S. Northern and U.S. Pacific Commands, NGB, and
    the 54 Joint Force Headquarters--State with connectivity to any task
    force headquarters location, staging area, or incident site. JCCSE will
    be a major step forward in sharing information among federal, state,
    local, tribal, private sector, and non-governmental entities for
    incidents occurring in the states and territories related to HLD/DSCA
    mission taskings, major disasters or emergencies, and catastrophic
    incidents.
    Open Source Information System
        The Open Source Information System is a Virtual Private Network
    used for open source research and sharing of unclassified, but
    sensitive, information between the National Guard Bureau and all 54
    Joint Force Headquarters--State, as well as other federal and DOD
    agencies. This system provides sensitive community-based, law-
    enforcement information at the lowest possible cost. The project is
    demonstrating the significant value-added concept of sharing installed
    technology with communities.
        The National Guard Bureau, in partnership with the Army's Foreign
    Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, has developed
    training on the use of the Open Source Information System as well as
    open source information research skills and methodologies. This effort
    will provide the necessary tools for research and information sharing
    at the unclassified level to ensure interoperability, reliability,
    efficiency, operations security and economies of scale.
    Homeland Security Joint Interagency Training Centers
        The Joint Force Headquarters of each state must possess the ability
    to establish one or more Joint Task Forces to support homeland defense.
    Additionally, as a result of legislation enacted in 2004, the legal
    authority exists to establish a Joint Task Force within each state
    composed of both National Guard members in non-federal status and
    active component military personnel. In order to better prepare
    National Guard leaders for the challenges of ``dual-status'' Joint Task
    Force command, the National Guard Bureau developed and implemented a
    formal training program for senior leaders from every state and
    territory. The dual-status Joint Task Force commander is a
    transformational concept that leverages the unique capabilities
    resident in the total force and strengthens unity of command in support
    of the homeland defense mission.
        National Guard Joint Interagency Training Centers were established
    in October 2004 at Camp Dawson, West Virginia and in San Diego,
    California. During fiscal year 2005, over 5,000 students from the
    National Guard and its interagency partners attended training at the
    centers. These training facilities conduct individual or collective
    training and educate Department of Defense entities and federal, state,
    and local authorities. The centers teach specialized courses in
    Incident Management, Continuity of Government/Continuity of Operations
    and Vulnerability Assessment. Areas of emphasis included protecting the
    domestic population, U.S. territory, and critical infrastructure
    against threats and aggression.
        These centers provide homeland security training development and
    delivery, and work to ensure training availability, quality, and
    standardization. They serve the homeland security training needs of
    National Guard units, specifically those with Homeland Defense, Civil
    Support, and Emergency Preparedness missions. The centers will continue
    to evolve through continuous and in-depth analysis of homeland security
    training requirements. The training centers continue to be a critical
    capability that achieves the homeland defense priorities of the
    National Guard Bureau.

                            STATE ADJUTANTS GENERAL

        Alabama--Major General (Ret) Crayton M. Bowen
        Alaska--Major General Craig E. Campbell
        Arizona--Major General David P. Rataczak
        Arkansas--Major General Don C. Morrow
        California --Major General William H. Wade, II
        Colorado--Major General Mason C. Whitney
        Connecticut--Brigadier General Thaddeus J. Martin
        Delaware--Major General Francis D. Vavala
        District of Columbia--Major General David F. Wherley, Jr.,
    Commanding General
        Florida--Major General Douglas Burnett
        Georgia--Major General David B. Poythress
        Guam--Major General Donald J. Goldhorn
        Hawaii--Major General Robert G. F. Lee
        Idaho--Major General Lawrence F. Lafrenz
        Illinois--Major General (IL) Randal E. Thomas
        Indiana--Major General R. Martin Umbarger
        Iowa--Major General G. Ron Dardis
        Kansas--Major General Tod M. Bunting
        Kentucky--Major General Donald C. Storm
        Louisiana--Major General Bennett C. Landreneau
        Maine--Major General John W. Libby
        Maryland--Major General Bruce F. Tuxill
        Massachusetts--Brigadier General (MA) Oliver J. Mason, Jr.
        Michigan--Major General Thomas G. Cutler
        Minnesota--Major General Larry W. Shellito
        Mississippi--Major General Harold A. Cross
        Missouri--Major General (MO) King E. Sidwell
        Montana--Major General Randall D. Mosley
        Nebraska--Major General Roger P. Lempke
        Nevada--Brigadier General (NV) Cynthia N. Kirkland
        New Hampshire--Major General Kenneth R. Clark
        New Jersey--Major General Glenn K. Rieth
        New Mexico--Brigadier General (NM) Kenny C. Montoya
        New York--Major General Joseph J. Taluto (Acting)
        North Carolina--Major General William E. Ingram, Jr.
        North Dakota--Major General Michael J. Haugen
        Ohio--Major General Gregory L. Wayt
        Oklahoma--Major General Harry M. Wyatt, III
        Oregon--Major General Raymond F. Rees
        Pennsylvania--Major General Jessica L. Wright
        Puerto Rico--Colonel (Ret) Benjamin Guzman
        Rhode Island--Brigadier General John L. Enright, Acting
        South Carolina--Major General (Ret) Stanhope S. Spears
        South Dakota--Major General Michael A. Gorman
        Tennessee--Major General Gus L. Hargett, Jr.
        Texas--Major General Charles G. Rodriguez
        Utah--Major General Brian L. Tarbet
        Vermont--Major General Martha T. Rainville
        Virginia--Brigadier General Robert B. Newman, Jr.
        Virgin Islands--Brigadier General (VI) Eddy G. L. Charles, Sr.
        Washington--Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg
        West Virginia--Major General Allen E. Tackett
        Wisconsin--Major General Albert H. Wilkening
        Wyoming--Major General Edward L. Wright

        Senator Stevens. General Vaughn, we would be happy to have
    your statement.

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLYDE A. VAUGHN,
                DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, DEPARTMENT
                OF THE ARMY
        General Vaughn. Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye,
    distinguished members of the subcommittee: General Blum has
    adequately captured my statement. I will ask that it be read
    into the record and I will just hit a couple points.
        The States, territories, and the District of Columbia
    continue to measure up and meet every mission as called by the
    President or the Governors. We still today have over 50,000
    mobilized on duty. A success story that is brewing up--and if I
    could have that chart real quick so we can see this. We have
    got a black line, I think that is big enough for all to see.
    That is where our end strength is going.
        We are on track to make 350,000. That end strength, as you
    can see on there, turned down in late 2003, in October. Where
    it stabilized and turned back up at the low point was June
    2005, which is the point in time where we had the most people
    that we have ever had, the most soldiers that we have ever had,
    deployed. Now, that speaks to something. That speaks to a lot
    of appreciation when these soldiers return home to their
    communities. You have had a lot to do with that and we thank
    you very much for your great and strong support. We are going
    to make this end strength at the end of this year.
        I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, General.
    Congratulations. That is good news.
        General Ickes, we would be happy to have your comments.

    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL CHARLES ICKES II, ACTING
                DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF
                THE AIR FORCE
        General Ickes. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the
    subcommittee: I really appreciate this opportunity to address
    you today.
        By the way, with me today, one of our chiefs. Chief Arnold,
    if you would stand up for a minute. He works for us at the
    Guard Bureau. In June he will retire with nearly 41 years of
    dedicated service to the Nation. He runs one of our strategic
    initiatives divisions and he has been instrumental to me
    personally in helping us set a path for the Air National Guard
    into the future. This is typical of what the Air Guard brings
    every day to the fight.
        Chief, thank you for being with us.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        General Ickes. I would certainly like to start by thanking
    the subcommittee for not only your fantastic support, but to
    tell you how important National Guard and Reserve equipment
    appropriation (NGREA) is to us as we move forward in the Air
    National Guard. The support that you give us in that area is
    vital. It is vital because it allows us to do those
    modernization and upgrading issues that we so vitally need. It
    allows us to address those, and you have been so helpful in
    that area and I cannot tell you how big of a positive impact
    that has for us.
        The Air National Guard is engaged in every mission set that
    the United States Air Force has today. We are truly part of the
    total force. We are involved whether it be airlift, alert, and
    Hurricane Katrina-like operations, both outside the Continental
    United States (OCONUS) and at home. We are totally engaged,
    excited, and supportive of these mission areas.
        During Hurricane Katrina and Rita last year, the vast
    majority of the aircraft you would have seen flying during
    those operations were Air National Guard units in support of
    the Governors and the emergency management assistance compact
    (EMAC) agreements and the compacts that are established. During
    Katrina operations we flew 389 separate sorties in 1 day. We
    flew nearly 3,000 sorties during that operation, supporting
    General Vaughn, General Blum, and the Governors to meet the
    needs of the Nation. I could not be prouder of those folks, and
    all they have done.
        Your assistance with the Air National Guard has been able
    to help us with unique business practices to field precision
    targeting pods, data links, and upgrade our numerous engine
    requirements. Our currently deployed forces now possess the
    ability to provide the combatant commanders (COCOMs) with
    previously unseen and vital urban close air support (CAS), a
    mission that a few years ago none of us were really that
    prepared to do, but thanks to your support, we have been able
    to make great strides in those mission areas.
        In the future we seek modernization of our precision strike
    capabilities, 24-hour combat ID, and enhanced survivability of
    our large aircraft as we put large aircraft infrared
    countermeasures (LAIRCOM) systems on them.
        Last year's achievements underscore the critical needs to
    maintain our ability to act as an operational force, but yet
    still remain and maintain a strategic capability. We provide
    surge for wartime needs, or for national emergencies, while
    being operational at the same time. We maintain capability when
    we are properly resourced, and we work that constantly with
    everybody.
        We fully support the President's budget, and we understand
    that budgets are always tight. There are areas, though, that we
    continue to look to address to make sure that we adequately
    meet the needs of our 106,800 guardsmen. We have to be able to
    continue to attract, recruit, and retain these individuals.
    This year we will highlight recruiting and retention bonuses,
    and the things that go with it, to allow us to be competitive
    in a very competitive recruiting market.
        We have already reallocated some funds this year to address
    those needs. We are focusing on increased advertising,
    storefront recruiting offices, administrative assistance to our
    recruiters, and to capitalize on those programs that we have
    already begun.
        Some other things that are impacting us. In the 2005
    National Defense Authorization Act, we were approved enhanced
    authority for bonus programs, but we did not--we were not, able
    to source adequately the funds. We are working to do that now.
        Training is vital to both the current and future
    capabilities of the Air National Guard. It is what makes us
    special and unique. We need your help with this shortfall in
    our training budgets.
        We need to continue to focus on, as we transform the
    National Guard along with the Air Force as part of the total
    force team, those total force initiatives (TFI) are properly
    funded and adequately resourced, so that we have new mission
    sets for those organizations, much like Senator Bond addressed.
        We are bringing on new capability as we speak, such as
    Predator in Nevada, Arizona, California, Texas, and shortly in
    North Dakota.
        Those of us in the Air National Guard responsible for
    keeping our traditional guardsmen trained and ready, our full-
    time technicians, are concerned that they have been under
    considerable strain. We are concerned about that force, but we
    are addressing that, and are keeping our eye on it.
        Another issue that has cropped up for us is contract
    logistics support for some of the new weapon systems we are
    bringing on board. We are finding more and more that we are
    finding shortfalls in those areas for the C-130J, for C-17s,
    and for the joint surveillance and target radar system (STARS)
    unit down in Georgia.
        Our depot maintenance program is only funded at about 75
    percent, and that will continue to be a challenge because we
    tend to fly legacy aircraft in the Air National Guard. We need
    to maintain those. Older aircraft need a little bit more care
    and feeding.
        I just want to thank you once again for all your great
    support. I want to thank you for all you have done in
    recognizing the contributions of our guardsmen, and I stand
    ready to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, General.
        Senator Dorgan, each of us had an opening statement. Before
    we start our 7 minutes each, would you like to have any opening
    statement?

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I was delayed. I
    will defer. I would only say, I am sure as all of you have, how
    much all of us appreciate the work that the Guard has done and
    thank you for bringing some soldiers here to share their
    stories with us. They are inspiring stories and talk once again
    of service and commitment, duty, and honor. So thank you very
    much.
        And I will await my chance to ask questions.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.

                  NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES OPERATION TEMPO

        General Blum, we have some statistics on the tempo of
    operations for the Guard and Reserve. Are you planning any
    special initiatives to try to deal with and manage the high
    operations tempo?
        General Blum. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are. We are working
    very closely with the Department of the Army and the Air Force
    to give our citizen-soldiers and airmen a predictable model of
    when they, their families, and their employers can expect to be
    called to extended active duty. I am not talking about for
    local disasters. They could get called out tonight; they
    understand that.
        For extended deployments in the air expeditionary force or
    in the army force generation model, we are moving every day
    closer to a predictable model that will allow an Army National
    Guardsman to know that once he has done an extended tour in
    Iraq, Afghanistan, somewhere else overseas, or here at home
    necessary and required for the defense of the Nation, he would
    probably be reasonably guaranteed a dwell time between 5 and 6
    years before he was called again from the States to go
    overseas.
        I think the employers will tolerate that. We think the
    families will tolerate that, and indications are from our
    service members that they find that is an acceptable model that
    they can live with. It also meets our regeneration model is
    practicable because we generally replenish our units at a rate
    of about 18 percent a year, which over 5 years means that you
    would not put an undue or unfair burden on a family, an
    employer, or a single guardsmen that they would not be
    otherwise willing, ready, and able to bear.
        Senator Stevens. I am not going to mention the individual,
    but I was contacted by an individual, a member of the Reserve,
    I think it was, who I was told the person had served in Iraq,
    returned home, and thought that was it, and entered a special
    program for advancement that was really not employment, it was
    more like an internship, the paid type of upgrading process,
    then was served another notice to go back to Iraq. If he does
    that he loses his promotional capability and he does not have a
    job now, like he did when he went over before.
        Now, are you set up so these individual circumstances can
    be examined on request of individual members if they are called
    up as quickly as that?
        General Blum. Mr. Chairman, in the National Guard of the
    United States Army and Air Force the adjutants general in each
    State are empowered to make those type of decisions.
        Senator Stevens. This is Reserve now. That is you, is it
    not?
        General Blum. Well, sir, I only have the National Guard
    under me. The second panel could probably address that better,
    but we recognize that as an issue. None of us--I do not want to
    speak for any of the Reserve chiefs that come behind me, but
    none of us want any of our reservists, whether the Guard or
    Reserve, to be punished because of their service, or to be
    unduly called to the service of their Nation repeatedly and
    unnecessarily.
        In the Guard we have empowered the Adjutants General to
    ensure that any soldier that did not want to willingly re-serve
    again sooner than 5 years would. In fact, soldiers have the
    ability to cross-level and get some other person with the same
    specialty or skill set to take their place, so that we do not
    put an unfair burden on any of our citizen-soldiers.
        I think the other Reserve chiefs will tell you how they do
    it in theirs, but that is how we do it in the Guard. I push
    that down to the State and local level.

                NATIONAL GUARD END STRENGTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE

        Senator Stevens. Have you had any negotiations with the
    service secretaries, the chiefs of staff, concerning end
    strengths and force structure changes that you have not
    discussed here now?
        General Blum. That we have not discussed here, Mr.
    Chairman? No. We have had very candid--what I share with this
    subcommittee I share with the service secretaries. I do not
    change my story. We have told Secretary Harvey and Secretary
    Wynne, the Secretary of the Army and the Air Force, that the
    Army and Air National Guard will meet their end strength and
    they will do it in the next calendar year. I am absolutely
    confident that the trend that General Vaughn showed you on that
    chart is a very healthy and real trend.
        We also, I might add, have the highest percentage of
    deployable forces within the Army and Air National Guard we
    have ever had in the history of the Army and Air National
    Guard. These are not hollow numbers. These are real deployable
    citizen-soldiers. By the end of this year we will have 350,000
    of those in the Army and about 106,700 of those in the Air
    Force, in the Air Guard.
        Senator Stevens. The President's budget said 333,000. The
    Army Secretary testified that he thought you would go up to
    350,000. Is that the agreement now?
        General Blum. The agreement is that they will fund us to
    350,000. The agreement was that they would restore all of the
    money that was taken out as a result of program decisions
    memorandum (PDM), which was--and I do not want to get this to
    the penny, but it is roughly $189 million in personnel, $219
    million in operation and maintenance (O&M), and about $63
    million in the defense health program that they absolutely are
    committed to restore to our coffers.
        Senator Stevens. What about the Air Force? We have got an
    overall reduction in strength of 40,000 in the future years
    defense plan (FYDP), I am told.
        General Blum. That is correct, sir. That is supposed to
    take effect in 2008 and we are under very serious
    negotiations--and that is the word, negotiations,
    collaboration--with the Department of the Air Force, because I
    cannot understand, nor can they adequately describe to me how
    that manpower bill was determined. They realize that there is a
    flaw in the calculation, and they are working with us to
    determine exactly what that manpower build really needs to be.
        It may be that the Air National Guard needs to be smaller.
    It may be that the Air National Guard needs to remain the same
    or it actually may need--we may actually need to grow. An
    informal manpower study that we have run--and we have asked the
    Air Force to validate it and run their own for us--actually
    shows us being a growth of 12,000 to 19,000 to do all of the
    missions that the Air Force wants the Air Guard to do.
        We are not saying they are right, we are not saying they
    are wrong. We are saying we are going to work together with
    them. We have the time before 2008 to get the numbers right and
    to get the size of the Air Guard right for this Nation and for
    the United States Air Force. Secretary Wynne and General Mosely
    have pledged their commitment to work with the Air National
    Guard leadership on this.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye.

                               EQUIPMENT FUNDING

        Senator Inouye. General Blum, last September a report was
    issued indicating that there was a need for $20 billion for the
    Army National Guard and $5 billion for the Air National Guard
    for equipment. The Congress responded by providing $1 billion.
    Can you tell us what your long-term plans are?
        General Blum. Senator Inouye, we will work with the
    leadership of the United States Army. The United States Army is
    challenged in this area as well. It is not unique to the Guard.
    It is worse for us in the Guard because we started at a lower
    level of equipping to begin with, so we are further in the
    hole, so to speak. They understand that.
        General Schoomaker and Secretary Harvey have appeared and
    testified to other subcommittees of Congress and the Senate and
    they have repeatedly assured us that there is $21 billion in
    the planning and operational maintenance (POM), in the future
    year defense plan (FYDP), in the budget, to address these
    issues for the Army National Guard. Frankly, they understate
    their contribution because there is about another $2 billion in
    there in aviation modernization. When you put it together there
    is almost $23 billion of good faith in the budget that the Army
    has in place to improve the equipment situation that exists in
    the Army National Guard.
        It is right now about as dire as I have seen it here at
    home in modern history but the other side of the coin is that
    we have the best equipped, best led, best trained force
    overseas right now that this Nation has ever fielded. That
    includes Active, Guard, and Reserve. It is truly seamless when
    you get overseas.
        The problem is that we have cross-leveled what we did not
    have now for 4\1/2\ years to ensure that the soldiers that go
    overseas have exactly what they need to do their job and that
    has depleted our stocks here at home. We are seriously looking
    at strategies to replenish those stocks of supplies and
    equipment. The United States Army leadership, particularly
    General Schoomaker and Secretary Harvey, have expressed their
    absolute commitment to making that a reality.

                              EQUIPMENT READINESS

        Senator Inouye. General Blum, there seems to be a common
    practice that when your troops, the Air and the Army National
    Guard, leave Afghanistan and Iraq they leave back their
    equipment. Obviously, from my standpoint it would affect
    readiness and I would think that it would make them unable to
    meet their State needs. But it is a common practice.
        I am just wondering, what do you think about that?
        General Blum. Senator Inouye, you are absolutely correct.
    The National Guard is often asked to leave the equipment that
    we cross-leveled and ensured that the soldiers would have when
    they left the United States. We are often asked to leave that
    in theater, in place, in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a good
    thing to do, in my judgment, because it saves lots of time and
    millions and millions of dollars in moving equipment back and
    forth.
        I fully support leaving the equipment in theater. What I
    think needs to be addressed is the unintended consequence of
    leaving us uncovered with equipment back here at home to train.
    We have the most experienced force that we have ever had; 60
    percent of our force now is combat veterans. They are used to
    having equipment in their hands that is modern and capable, and
    if they are going to stay with us, if we are going to be able
    to retain these skilled, experienced people, we are going to
    have to have equipment to train and keep them--keep the edge on
    their capabilities.
        We are also going to need that equipment to train the new
    people that we are recruiting. We need the nonlethal equipment,
    the trucks, the medical sets, the communications, aviation, the
    engineer equipment, that are absolutely vital if we are going
    to be able to do our homeland defense and homeland support
    missions when we are called upon to support agencies such as
    the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Whether we are called
    out by the Governor or we are called out by the President, we
    are going to need that equipment.
        The problem has been we have not paid sufficient attention
    to re-equipping or resetting the force back here at home fast
    enough for that domestic mission to have equipment to train
    with and to have equipment to respond to natural disasters or
    terrorist events here in the United States.
        Senator Inouye. You are not getting it?
        General Blum. Sir?
        Senator Inouye. You are not getting it?
        General Blum. We are starting to get it now. I think that
    the senior leadership of the Army and the Air Force understand
    the urgency to do this now. They are, I think, genuinely
    committed to helping us remedy this problem. It will not get
    fixed overnight, however, Senator. It is going to take--it is
    going to take, frankly, years. My issue is that I do not know
    if we have years. Sooner is better for me, because this is not
    equipment that it is nice to have; it is essential to have. We
    may need it as soon as the next 60 days in the southeastern
    part of our Nation for the hurricane season that is beginning.

             NATIONAL GUARD ROLE IN THE QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW

        Senator Inouye. The recent Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
    came forth with a new force structure plan which drastically
    changes your force structure. Did you have any role to play in
    this or was it just imposed upon the Guard?
        General Blum. We did not play a very effective role in it,
    let us put it that way, Senator. General Schoomaker and
    Secretary Harvey have both testified that it could have been
    done better. They are committed to making sure that it is done
    better in the future and that we are not as surprised as we
    were last time.
        Senator Inouye. Time does not permit it, but can you
    provide this subcommittee how you would do it better?
        General Blum. Well, sir, I will try to simplify it. If I am
    going to play football on a football team, it is nice to get
    called to the huddle if you are going to know what play you are
    supposed to run. They are committed to making sure that we get
    called to all of the huddles, not just some of them.
        Senator Inouye. So you did not have a huddle?
        General Blum. I am sure there was a huddle. I am not sure
    that we were in the huddle.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Well put, General. I think we are going to
    try to deal with that.
        Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. How does it feel like to be General
    Carpenter and be the lonesome end, if you remember those days.
        General Blum. Yes, sir, I do.

                     AIR NATIONAL GUARD F-15 MODERNIZATION

        Senator Burns. We have already covered--Senator Inouye
    already covered some--one of my questions, and that was the
    equipment, and we understand that our 163d is coming back,
    about 35 percent of their equipment, and there being a real
    bind in replacing some of that equipment. I am certainly glad
    you are taking care of that.
        General Ickes, I am kind of concerned about, you said a
    while ago on your budget that the President has set down--as
    you know, we are converting in Montana from 16's to 15's, and I
    did not see any real strong funding for modernizing the new F-
    15C's that we are getting up there. To be more specific, there
    is a piece of equipment called the active electronically
    scanned array radar (AESAR). Is that being addressed or are we
    going to have to--are we going to have to take care of that?
        Senator Bond. Yes.
        Senator Burns. You and me are going to do that? Me and you,
    huh? Okay. We killed a bear; paw shot him.
        But I would still like for you to address that situation.
        General Ickes. Yes, sir. I believe the Air Force does
    believe that it is a--the AESAR radar, as it is addressed, is a
    major enhancement to the capability of the F-15. Our concern
    remains if the Air Guard, which has 100 percent of the fixed
    alert facilities in the United States and is given that
    responsibility to protect the sovereign skies of the United
    States, we ought to probably have the best equipment on our
    aircraft to meet that mission set.
        As there are certain potential threats that come down the
    road in the future, we want to make sure that we can adequately
    address that. Congress did appropriate some money and we are in
    the process right now of addressing $50 million some across the
    F-15 fleet within the Air National Guard. That certainly will
    not address anywhere near enough of the aircraft, the F-15's
    within the Air National Guard. So as we address a modernization
    road map, that is certainly one of the things that our F-15
    community has spoken to as something they think would be vital
    to be relevant into the future.
        So yes, sir, there is money out there now.
        Senator Burns. Well, I thank you for that response and we
    will be following this very closely. I would also say that the
    northern border unit that we have now going in up there of
    course we are going to be looking at. It is getting itself in
    place up there right now. I will not be here for the second
    panel, but I want the subcommittee to know that our Red Horse
    Brigade that operates out of Montham is a hybrid force. It has
    both Reserves and regulars in it. In fact, the first commander,
    commanding officer of that brigade, was a Reserve officer.
        This kind of a blend of people has helped us in our force
    and it works. There are some folks that say that they are a
    little skeptical about the cooperation and how each one of us
    is looked at. So that has worked up there, and of course I
    think we will see probably more of that both probably as far as
    the Army, the boots on the ground, and kind of people will also
    be a hybrid type of organization.
        But I am still concerned about the equipment, the
    replacement of that equipment for our folks to train. We are
    moving into a fire season in Montana. I do not think we will
    have a huge fire season this year. We have got more than
    adequate moisture, which we thank the Lord for, and we will
    move on. But we will be monitoring these kind of situations.
    General, maybe we should sit down and talk about those kind of
    things as far as the Air Guard is concerned and your concerns
    there.
        I appreciate your good leadership on this. With that, that
    is the only question that I have and I would yield the floor,
    and thank you very much for coming and your testimony.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Mikulski.

                  EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FOR NATURAL DISASTERS

        Senator Mikulski. Many of my questions have been covered,
    about equipment and some other issues. I want to get to the
    question of, were you in the huddle, General Blum, not about
    the QDR, but about emergency planning in terms of our response
    to natural disasters.
        Let me get to my point. Both panelists and you have said
    that hurricane season starts June 1, fire season. Each State
    has its own natural disaster propensities. The Guard, both Army
    and Air Force, were valiant during Katrina and worked at an
    incredible tempo. Your testimony, General Ickes, just speaks
    for itself. Behind every number is a person and a family.
        So my question is this. I am worried that we are not
    prepared again. We keep moving people around. We keep moving
    boxes around. But the question is: Are we prepared? In getting
    ready for both hurricane season and natural disasters, has
    there been a real plan established where there would be a
    disaster of such horrific proportion, like Katrina was, for the
    way the National Guard will be organized, mobilized, the
    prepositioned materials, et cetera?
        I am worried about hurricanes. I am worried if avian flu
    does come to America it will be the National Guard that will
    have to maintain civic order, perhaps even the quarantine of
    our own people. Could you tell me, are you in the huddle? Are
    we being prepared? Because I think you have the right stuff. I
    am just concerned that we do not have the right organizational
    mechanism to mobilize our response the way we need to be
    mobilized.
        General Blum. Senator Mikulski, let me assure you that our
    excellent response last year, which was historic in its scope
    and speed, unprecedented in military history of the world to a
    natural disaster, will be better this year if needed because,
    frankly, you have given us $800 million, your subcommittee has
    given us $800 million. We have spent that on equipment on
    exactly what we told you we needed to respond better this year.
        Last year we had three deployable command and control
    satellite communications systems deployed. This year we will
    have 19----
        Senator Mikulski. General, it is not only about equipment.
    You know, the response to Katrina was late, uneven, disjointed.
    There was a lack of a national command and control structure.
    When a State's own responses are so overwhelmed by the nature
    of the disaster, only a national response can come in. As you
    know as guardsmen and someone under the doctrine of mutual
    assistance, has that been rectified?
        General Blum. I cannot with absolute certainty say it has
    been rectified. I can tell you that we have had avian flu
    exercises this year. We have had multiple hurricane exercises
    this year. I am gratified by the fact that more people are
    coming to the huddle that you describe than we used to see
    coming to the huddle, including FEMA. We have a big one coming
    up on May 17 with all of the National Guard leadership in FEMA.
        Senator Mikulski. Who would be in charge?
        General Blum. Well, absolutely it would be the Governor of
    the State where the hurricane occurs initially, and then if
    they request Federal assistance who will be in charge will be
    designated by the administration and the Department of Homeland
    Security. It could very well be FEMA. It would be very likely
    that it would be----
        Senator Mikulski. Then how would you be mobilized for a
    national response? What the Air Force did is beyond a local
    National Guard and they themselves might have been killed. The
    base might have been destroyed. Their families will be in
    disarray or evacuating.
        General Blum. From the uniformed side, we will--I will
    absolutely tell you that the situational awareness or the
    information sharing between the United States Northern Command
    and the National Guard has improved and will be better this
    year than it was last year. You will also see an improved
    communication and sharing of information with the Joint Staff
    of the Department of Defense this year. Better than it was in
    the early stages last year. You will even see better
    communication between the adjutants general and the supporting
    States with one another than they did, even as compared to how
    extraordinarily well they did last year.
        We have learned a lot of things the hard way last hurricane
    season. We hope to do better on many of those things this year.
    I will never say that we are absolutely prepared because you
    never know exactly what we are going to be facing, but we are
    better prepared than we were last year as an inter-agency
    coordinated effort.
        I do not know if that adequately answers your question.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, it does, but you need to know I
    worry about it.
        General Blum. Well, you should, you should.
        Senator Mikulski. We can talk more about it or even
    privately about it, because I think both the Army and the Air
    Force, and then coupled with our Coast Guard, were fantastic.
    But you need to be able to have the response at the right time.

                      RETENTION IN THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

        Army retention. One of the issues I think, is the retention
    of the noncommissioned officers (NCO's) or at the sergeant
    level a significant challenge? Because no matter how well we
    recruit, you need an officer corps, and it's the NCO that seems
    to play such a part in both training and even the social glue
    of individual units in our States. Am I right in that analysis,
    and how are we doing on retaining them?
        General Vaughn. I think you are exactly right, Senator. We
    are very proud of our retention inside the Army Guard. It goes
    back to those units that have been deployed and done very
    meaningful things. You know what we are faced with with our
    recruiting situation. We are going to have the youngest
    National Guard that we have ever had, but we are also going to
    have the most combat veterans we have ever had.
        Every place we go, we see folks that would have--we see
    soldiers really that would have left the force except for one
    thing: They wanted to go with their unit on a deployment. When
    you were talking about folks that went back the second time a
    while ago, there are 1,000 soldiers out of Minnesota that went
    with the 1st of the 34th that did not have to go.
        Now, what we are seeing is those soldiers when they come
    back--normally they would not have been in anyway, but they
    extended, and what they are telling us is they will stay with
    us to groom that next level of leadership in the NCO corps
    before they leave. That is all we are asking them to do,
    because we are going to have a very young force.
        I think we are doing real well in retention. We thank this
    subcommittee for all of that help. Across the Army we are doing
    well. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I have other questions. I know others will be
    asked. My time is up. I would just like to comment to the Air
    Force. I have a very keen interest in military medicine that
    the leadership of the subcommittee is aware of. I think the
    advances we have made in Iraq at limiting both mortality and
    morbidity has been fantastic. It is because of not only the new
    battlefield techniques, but because of what the Air Force does,
    from lifting the soldier from the battlefield to the hospital
    in Iraq or Afghanistan and to Germany.
        I think it has been a story that has not been told, and
    every physician, including the civilian community, is amazed at
    the brilliance of it and the medical ingenuity. But it could
    not be done without the Air Force doing the heavy lifting. So a
    very, very, very special thanks.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
        Let me remind Senators we have another panel and we have a
    vote starting at, two votes starting at 12 noon.
        Senator Bond.
        Senator Bond. Mr. Chairman, I have agreed to yield to
    Senator Domenici for one quick question.

                   HOLLARAN AIR FORCE BASE: F-22 CONSTRUCTION

        Senator Domenici. One question. My question has to do with
    Holloman Air Force Base and the fact that the F-22's are
    scheduled to be assigned there. As you know, at the other
    assignments the Air National Guard flies the F-22's in
    conjunction with the regular Air Force. My question is how will
    the New Mexico National Guard be used for operating the F-22
    squadrons at Holloman?
        General Ickes. Yes, sir, Senator. As a matter of fact, 2
    weeks ago I was in discussions with The Adjutant General (TAG)
    and his staff down in New Mexico to how we best leverage those
    great Air Guardsmen down there to move into the F-22 mission.
    Much like we are going to be and we are in Virginia and Hawaii.
        We have great opportunities in the F-22. What we are
    looking at is how we can come up with a concept that will allow
    the unit to be able to recruit and retain down at Holloman and
    be a vital part of that mission. We have found at Langley with
    the folks that we have put in the F-22. The Air Force is
    ecstatic about the skill sets that we are bringing the
    experience in both our air crew and our maintainers. We are
    looking for the best way to do that.
        I would tell you that it will be something like a
    detachment-type (DET) of construct probably initially. It
    probably will not be a full-up robust unit down there
    initially, just because of how we will sustain a full-up unit
    down there. The TAG is very eager to look at organizational
    constructs that would work to get the New Mexico Guard into
    that.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, General Ickes.

                NATIONAL GUARD SEAT ON THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

        General Blum, what does the National Guard represent now in
    terms of percentage of the total force?
        General Blum. About 32 percent of the total capability of
    the United States Army and about 34 percent of the total
    capability of the United States Air Force.
        Senator Bond. Can you tell me how many hold the rank of
    general and lieutenant general respectively in the active duty
    Army and in the Air Force?
        General Blum. No, sir, I am not prepared to give you that
    number right now.
        Senator Bond. I think in the Army there are 12 generals and
    49 lieutenant generals, the Air Force 13 generals and 37
    lieutenant generals.
        The National Guard has how many generals and how many
    lieutenant generals?
        General Blum. We do not have any generals and, as far as
    lieutenant generals, we have----
        Senator Bond. Three.
        General Blum [continuing]. Three.
        Senator Bond. So that is zero percent of the full generals,
    3 percent of the lieutenant generals, although you comprise
    over 30 percent of the force. Should we increase the grade
    authorization of the Chief National Guard Bureau (CNGB) to four
    star in order to provide him or her a seat at the Joint Chiefs
    of Staff (JCS), thus giving the Guard a stronger voice?
        General Blum. Is that a direct question to me, sir?
        Senator Bond. Is that a--yes. Should we?
        General Blum. It would be probably inappropriate for me to
    comment and my feelings on that really do not matter. Those
    decisions really need to be decided in other places. What I
    have got to do is decide how to do the job with the tools I
    have in front of me.
        Senator Bond. I understand the Department of Defense
    position. Do you have a personal opinion on which you can give
    me some guidance?
        General Blum. Well, sir, if you are asking me would it aid
    a future chief in their ability to do the job, I think that is
    certainly worthy of very serious consideration. However, it
    would be inappropriate for me to discuss that because I am
    currently in that position.
        Senator Bond. We understand that and we take that into
    account.
        But let me just, a couple points and I want to see if I
    have got these correct. Since 9/11 the role of the Guard has
    become more important to the security of the Nation. In
    response to 9/11, Congress created an Assistant Secretary of
    Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, but did not
    establish any formal connection between those entities and the
    National Guard Bureau (NGB), and under the current law the NGB
    is still limited to serving as a channel of communication
    between the services and it has no formal connection to the
    Joint Chiefs of Staff, no voice of its own inside the Joint
    Chiefs of Staff.
        Is that a correct statement of the structure?
        General Blum. Sir, if you look at--this question I am more
    comfortable to address, frankly, because it is not tied to an
    incumbent or anything like that. The U.S. Code right now
    establishes in law the job of the Chief of the National Guard
    Bureau. It is restricted to a channel of communication between
    the States and the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Air Force
    and the Secretary of the Army and the Air Force. It does not
    recognize any direct connection to the Department of Defense.
    It does not establish any connection to the Joint Staff. It
    does not reflect any that Goldwater-Nichols changes.
        We were completely excluded from that and obviated from
    those reforms. We are still left in the 1947 construct. We are
    a unique organization that is still viewed through policy,
    regulation, authorities, and resources largely as a strategic
    reserve. Yet we are an operational force today and will be a
    more and more essential operational force in the future.
        So I would say the policies, the regulations, the
    authorities, and the resources need to seriously be looked at
    to bring them into line with an operational force that is
    unique, in all of DOD; and that has shared responsibilities
    with the dual mission for both the governors and the President.
        Senator Bond. As we have discussed, this year the Army
    through the Pentagon sent Congress a budget proposal which
    reduced the size, proposed reducing the size of the Army Guard
    force structure, holding back some of the manpower funding
    based on recruiting downturns. I believe that senior Army
    leadership has acknowledged the fact in congressional testimony
    these decisions were made without full and complete
    consultation with the States or the adjutants general. Is that
    a fair statement?
        General Blum. Yes, sir, and that has been the testimony of
    the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army.
        Senator Bond. We have also heard from the subcommittee
    previously in BRAC consultations the Air Guard was left out of
    making what I consider, I have already stated, is a very bad
    decision. When hurricane--well, when you have four-star
    generals making decisions like this, from what little I know
    about military discipline, a three-star general listens to a
    four-star general, the four-star general gives the orders to
    three-star generals. Is that a fair account of the structure?
        General Blum. Yes, sir, that is the way it is set up to
    work and it works very well.
        Senator Bond. That is why we want to change it.
        When Hurricane Katrina struck, the biggest military
    deployment response effort was conducted, not by the Department
    of Defense, but States sending National Guards under the
    emergency management assistance compact and set up specialized
    informed dialogue between the States and the Federal
    Government.
        Even though the National Guard Bureau had no formal
    connection to the Department of Defense or the White House, you
    were in fact called upon to give advice and provide
    coordination, were you not?
        General Blum. Absolutely, particularly after the first 24
    to 36 hours.
        Senator Bond. I understand the National Guard Bureau has
    been in the forefront of cutting edge ideas, like the joint
    force headquarters, State chem-bio response, National Guard
    quick reaction. You have pioneered these capabilities as
    America needs them. But I understand it has been slow to get
    DOD funding, at least in part because the National Guard Bureau
    does not have a formal mandate to develop unique capabilities
    such as this. Is that correct?
        General Blum. That is fair, sir. That is a fair statement.
    That is accurate.
        Senator Bond. I will say that I will make a statement that
    adding a four-star general will not endanger national security.
        Thank you, General Ickes. Following up on the comment made
    by Senator Mikulski, our congressional delegation (CODEL) to
    Iraq and Afghanistan, we were flying a National Guard C-130,
    supposedly going directly to Kabul. We detoured to Kandahar,
    picked up a severely injured Afghan officer. They established a
    field hospital on the C-130, dropped him at Bagram Air Base,
    and we saw how magnificent the work of the National Guard,
    Wyoming Guard flying in Rhode Island aircraft.
        Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

                    TOTAL FORCE INTEGRATION AND NORTH DAKOTA

        General Ickes, I wonder if you could update me on the plans
    for the 119th, the Happy Hooligans in Fargo?
        General Ickes. Well, sir, right now what we are trying to
    figure out in the Air Guard, working with the Air Force, is--
    and General Blum has alluded to it--there is a myriad of
    requirements that we are looking to fill, capability that we
    want to bring. That drives us to somewhere to around 112,000 to
    119,000 guardsmen.
        But yet we understand when we start matching resources to
    requirements there will be some adjustments made. So now what
    we are trying to figure out in this total force initiative is
    what are we going to be able to do.
        For North Dakota specifically, Predator is, the unmanned
    air vehicle (UAV) systems are on their way to North Dakota. We
    will be standing that up shortly. I was in discussion with the
    TAG this morning about the bridge missions for the State to
    make sure that we have a bridge capability. General Blum has
    committed to them being our first joint cargo aircraft
    organization. So we are working for a way that we do not lose
    that flying capability in the organization, and we will be
    discussing that more today.
        But we are trying to figure out, are we going to have
    adequate resources to stand up this new total force integration
    capability as we go into the future? We have the people, we
    have the missions. We have just got to make sure resources
    match that, and training.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, the administration's budget proposal
    to cut the Air Guard by roughly 14,000 over 5 years, how will
    that affect the total force integration? How might it affect
    the total force integration?
        General Ickes. It will have a big impact, sir, if we have
    to meet that requirement. General Blum has been working close--
    we work close with General Wood, the head programmer of the Air
    Force. We are trying to figure out how to move into new
    transformational organizations so that we can find some
    efficiencies.
        But our concern is that, as we have done some preliminary
    studies, the Guard--there is enough capability and requirement
    for more than we have today. Now we have to prioritize and then
    figure out, what are we going to be able to do? It is going to
    be a challenge for us as we move into the future.
        We understand the Air Force's needs to modernize the fleet.
    We want to be part of that. We will be part of that. But there
    are some challenges.
        Senator Dorgan. The flying mission, the Happy Hooligans,
    the 119th, the bridge you are talking about there might be some
    C-130's, is that correct?
        General Blum. Yes, it might, Senator. But we may even have
    a better solution that we are going to discuss on that with the
    Governor today. Actually, later today we will meet with the
    Governor. We have been able to come up with another option that
    we would like North Dakota to consider that may be even,
    frankly, better than that.
        But if nothing better than that develops, then we will
    probably do what we have discussed and that would be the C-130
    bridge.

                              LENGTH OF DEPLOYMENT

        Senator Dorgan. Let me ask, General Blum. One of the issues
    with respect to the National Guard in my State and others when
    they are deployed is that generally speaking, while they are
    citizen-soldiers, have jobs, homes, families they are leaving
    to go, in many cases now to deployment in Iraq, they are taken
    on their deployment and gone in many cases 14, 16, in some
    cases 18 months. Active duty soldiers when deployed in most
    cases leave their base station here in the United States and
    are gone 12 months and back.
        So the fact is the citizen-soldiers here are gone from home
    the longest. Tell me, are you working through--I know that you
    addressed some of that earlier this morning. Are you working
    through ways to reduce that time away from home for the
    deployments for the Guard?
        General Blum. The short answer is yes, sir, we are. If you
    want more detail, I will tell you how we are doing it.
        Senator Dorgan. If you would, yes.
        General Blum. There are several factors there that are
    involved. One is the mobilization piece. When they are called
    up they have to be given the equipment they did not have, they
    have to be given the training that they did not receive, they
    have to get processed for all of the dental and medical issues
    that were not resourced or covered previously because they were
    a strategic reserve.
        As you bring them in to make them an operational force, it
    takes time and resources to do that. That extends the time.
        All soldiers in the United States Army spend 1 year boots
    on the ground right now. General Schoomaker and the Army
    leadership is committed to shortening that as fast as they
    possibly can, but right now they are unable to do that. We do
    not want to look unaccessible or unreliable. We want to remain
    an essential, integral part of the United States Army and Air
    Force. We serve overseas the same length of time as the active
    duty people.
        The additional time you are talking about is the time that
    could be shortened if equipment were in the hands and training
    were in the hands of the reservists or the national guardsmen
    before they were called. That would dramatically shorten the
    time. The active duty people still do training before they
    deploy as well and I do not take any quarrel with that at all.
    There is always specialized training required. But this time
    could be shortened through process and resource.

                         EQUIPMENT, WEAR AND DEPLETION

        Senator Dorgan. In my remaining minute and a half, let me
    ask about equipment. There has been a lot of stories and a lot
    of evaluation about just plain wearing out of equipment. We
    have a very large emergency supplemental bill on the floor of
    the Senate now. Much of that is to try to replace equipment
    that is wearing out. We are using that equipment much more
    heavily than was anticipated.
        Tell me what you are facing with that equipment situation?
        General Blum. Exactly the same issues, except it is
    exacerbated because we started with less than all of the
    equipment we were supposed to have to begin with. As I said
    earlier, the entire United States Army has this problem. It is
    not unique to the Guard or the Reserves, but the Guard and the
    Reserves have a more significant problem because they were
    underresourced at the beginning and as the resources are
    depleted that pushes you further and further in the hole.
        I do not know if that is adequate for your answer, but that
    is the overall big picture.
        Senator Dorgan. It is a pretty serious problem, I think.
        General Blum. Oh, it is an incredible problem for the
    United States Army over the total Army, not just the Guard, but
    the Guard suffers disproportionately because we started lower
    on our inventory to begin with.
        Senator Dorgan. General Vaughn, General Blum, General
    Ickes, thank you very much for being here.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                NATIONAL GUARD SEAT ON THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

        I am pleased all the witnesses are here. I have read the
    testimony. Unfortunately, we are at Judiciary at the same time.
    I know much of my questions have already been asked.
        We look over the past year and we have seen troops from our
    National Guard providing upward of 50 percent of the troops in
    Iraq. We know the National Guard provided perhaps the best
    response of the Government to Hurricane Katrina, and General
    Blum and I have talked about these matters before.
        A lot of us were very disappointed to see the Army and the
    Air Force attempt to cut the end strength of the National Guard
    on purely budget grounds without considering they have broad
    responsibilities. Senator Bond has already discussed this, but
    he and I are co-chairs of the Guard Caucus and we fought these
    cuts very hard. We have actually 73 members in a time when,
    unfortunately, the Senate has become far more partisan than
    what the three of us are used to as more senior members here.
    This was a strong showing of bipartisanship, 73 Senators
    joining the letter to the Secretary opposing this.
        I kind of look at the National Guard as a 21st century
    fighting force with a kind of 19th century organizational chart
    or flow chart. I think the interesting thing is how well you
    have worked around some of those obstacles. That is why Senator
    Bond and I are introducing the National Defense Enhancement and
    Guard Empowerment Act of 2006, which has been discussed.
        General Blum, you were circumspect in your answers to
    Senator Bond on that. I do not want to pressure, but tell me
    this. Would your successor be in a better position to address
    the needs of the Guard if the chief sat on the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff?
        General Blum. I would have to say that that would be a more
    advantageous position to have your points, your agenda, and
    your voice heard. I would think, I would think that it could
    not be anything other than an advantage for someone to be in
    that position. I can see no disadvantage for a future chief.
    You could not provide him a better platform to have his voice
    heard, let me at least put it to you that way.
        You are asking me a very awkward question.
        Senator Leahy. I understand. I had a follow-up on that,
    which I will not ask because that would be even more awkward.
        I have not heard anybody on this panel try to dissuade
    Senator Bond and me from going forward. I had an interesting
    discussion with the Secretary of Defense where he disagrees
    with us and in fact made his position very clear. I however
    made mine very clear. And he and I have known each other for
    well over 30 years and we sometimes agree and when we disagree
    we are never so shy that we refrain from letting each other
    know where we disagree.
        Let me ask you this. The Army and the Air Force when they
    were putting forward the request for cutting the Guard's force
    structure by 17,000 and 14,000 respectively, were you or your
    two chief deputies involved in the deliberations and
    decisionmaking?
        General Blum. I think it has been testified before by
    myself, Secretary Harvey, General Schoomaker, the Chief of
    Staff of the Army, that that entire episode could have been
    done and handled much better. There is a definite commitment
    amongst the senior leadership of the United States Army and the
    Guard Bureau to make sure that we speak with one voice and that
    we move forward, from what has been a very ugly and consistent
    past history that is well known by all the members of this
    subcommittee. This is not a new development. This is a pattern,
    a historical pattern, that we are trying to get away from. We
    are trying to move forward in a new, more positive direction
    with the current leadership.
        But the history is replete with examples where the Guard
    and Reserve leadership were informed more than they were
    involved.

                               MISSION READINESS

        Senator Leahy. Well, what bothers me is that also it comes
    down almost like you are doing it with a slide rule on money
    and ignoring mission. I am more interested in looking first at
    what the mission is and then determining whether we can fulfill
    the mission. I think it sort of goes the other way around, and
    I think that is unfortunate.
        We have seen a broadly expanded mission in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. I certainly see it from my little State of
    Vermont, that we have had on a per capita basis one of the
    highest, if not the highest, number of casualties in the
    country. We certainly have not found anybody who has refused to
    go. They are there. They salute and off they go. And I am told
    by those who have visited from outside our State that
    Vermonters have handled themselves extremely well.
        General Blum. Yes, sir, they have.
        Senator Leahy. But I think that could be said of a whole
    lot of States. And I also know that our regular Army and Air
    Force have done an extremely good job over there, but they
    could not do the job that they have been tasked to do, or our
    marines, without the backup of the Guard. Then we have, of
    course, the homeland things. Katrina, we saw that, when you
    guys responded so well. But we also saw an enormous amount of
    equipment used up.
        My time is up. I think you know where I stand on this. We
    will keep trying to replace the equipment you need for Katrina,
    from Katrina, and Iraq and Afghanistan, because, much as we
    would like to say the need will never occur again, we know it
    will.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Blum. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.

                           ROLE OF THE NATIONAL GUARD

        Thank you very much, Generals. I was just sitting here
    talking to Senator Inouye and we are reminded about the fact
    that about 27, 28 years ago Senator Stennis decided on the
    recommendation of Senator Hollings and myself to ask the Guard
    to have their people who had duty time 2 weeks a year to
    perform that over in Europe, and that led to the whole concept
    of trying to think about how we could use the Guard and Reserve
    forces in terms of augmenting the commitments we had at that
    time to maintain forces in Europe.
        We have come a long way now. We also were the ones that put
    in the first bill to make your rank four star, General. When
    that failed, everyone moved up to three stars, but we had two
    people assigned to be advisers to the Chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs to represent Guard and Reserve interests on the
    immediate staff.
        Now we are going back again to the four-star level and
    obviously questions here from the Guard Caucus indicate that,
    and Senator Inouye and I will once again join them in trying to
    bring about a restructuring. In the final analysis, that will
    be a decision by the Armed Services Committee, but we think we
    have a role in this also, so we are going to be advisers, but
    certainly rely on your judgment as to how this might work out.
        It is not going to be too convenient to have a fifth member
    of the Joint Chiefs who really has a role that intercedes with
    two other chiefs. We have to find some way with the Armed
    Services Committee to reconcile that problem. But I certainly
    do agree it is time now that the forces that you represent, you
    and the generals who follow you represent, are part of the
    total force and they should not--that force should be at the
    table. It should be in the huddle, General, and we look forward
    to helping to do that.
        General Blum. Mr. Chairman, if I might, for the record I
    would like to state my position on one thing. I do not support
    the National Guard being a separate service. I hope no one
    takes any of the testimony or draws conclusions. First of all,
    I have not really seen the details of what is being proposed
    here today, and it is very awkward for me to comment.
        Senator Stevens. We are not asking you to and I do not
    think we should.
        General Blum. And I certainly want to go on record as
    saying that the role of the Army National Guard and the Air
    National Guard as Federal reserve components of the Army and
    the Air Force should be maintained and probably strengthened,
    and that the unique dual role mission of the National Guard,
    which is really probably the core of what is misunderstood most
    or not well understood or well known throughout the halls of
    the Pentagon, is the root of a lot of the problems.
        I would say that you want to maintain that unique dual
    role, and I would say that you want to maintain the Army and
    Air National Guard of the United States as Federal Reserves of
    the Army and the Air Force, but clearly, clearly the
    legislation that exists today does not recognize the Department
    of Defense, it does not recognize the Joint Staff, it does not
    recognize Northern Command's existence, it does not recognize
    the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense. Those
    things are absolutely in need of serious addressing. There is
    no question.
        The National Guard needs to be, as well as the other
    Reserve components need to be, brought up and caught up with
    the Goldwater-Nichols Act. We were left out of that.
        Senator Stevens. Well, the experience you are going through
    now and we have been through in terms of this involvement for
    Afghanistan and then Iraq certainly demonstrates the need for
    rethinking of the organizational structure that utilizes the
    Guard and Reserve. That is what we are saying. I think we are
    trying to bring about that really recognition of what this
    experience has demonstrated. I hope we are successful.
        General Blum. Senator Leahy, I will not get into your
    discussions with the Secretary of Defense, but I do know that
    he recognizes what I just described as an issue that needs to
    be resolved, and he has a very keen interest in resolving.
    There is no question about it. This is definitely on his radar
    screen to be addressed.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        General Blum. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. We thank the three of you.
        [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 H Steven Blum
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

        Question. The National Guard has deployed a substantial amount of
    equipment overseas. How has the loss of that equipment affected
    readiness levels nationwide? How do you plan on replenishing that
    equipment?
        Answer. As one would expect, the readiness levels of the Army
    National Guard (ARNG) units have declined substantially. The ARNG has
    contributed approximately 86,000 pieces of equipment valued at over
    $2.8 billion as ``theater provided equipment'' (TPE). While the Army
    has the role and responsibility of equipping the ARNG, the ARNG and
    Army have been working closely together to develop a strategy that will
    transform our formations into modular units. In the 2005-2011 Program
    Objective Memorandum (POM) Army has ``firewalled'' over $21 billion of
    equipment dedicated to the ARNG. In addition, Army has requested $2.2
    billion in the fiscal year 2007 supplemental to repay the ARNG for
    equipment contributed to TPE. The ARNG is currently working with the
    Army on the 2008-2013 POM to further modernize and transform the ARNG.
    The ARNG also has developed an Unfinanced Request for an additional $33
    billion that, if funded, would fill the ARNG to 100 percent of
    Objective Table of Organization and Equipment requirements, thus
    fulfilling the Army's ultimate goal.
        Question. I am concerned with the President's fiscal year 2007
    budget request for National Guard Counter-Drug programs. Each year the
    administration does not request sufficient funds for State Plans
    Programs, and this year is no different. Why is it important that the
    National Guard continue to support our nation's counter-drug program?
        Answer. National Guard Counterdrug (NG CD) Program personnel in
    every state and territory work to: provide specialized military support
    of the drug related homeland security activities of federal, state, and
    local law enforcement, in the form of criminal activity analysis, law
    enforcement officer training, aviation support, criminal activity
    observation and reporting, linguist support, and engineering support;
    educate America's youth about the dangers of drug abuse and addiction,
    to reduce the demand for drugs; and lend specialized drug fighting
    skills to the military Combatant Commanders abroad in their fight
    against terrorism and drugs.
        The National Guard is an effective force multiplier for law
    enforcement's drug interdiction efforts. In fiscal year 2005 National
    Guard Counterdrug personnel assisted law enforcement in seizing the
    following: cocaine (353,225 pounds); crack cocaine (11,950 pounds);
    marijuana plants (2,043,734 plants); marijuana, processed (1,986,178
    pounds); methamphetamine (6,137 pounds); heroin (2,139 pounds); ecstasy
    (560,971 pills); other/designer drugs (4,621,339 pills); weapons
    (11,490); vehicles (4,357); and currency ($241,988,784).
        The National Guard Counterdrug program faces serious financial
    challenges. Approximately 90 percent of the CD Budget is used to fund
    personnel Pay and Allowances. Budget increases have not kept pace with
    the inflation in manpower costs. As the buying power of the budget
    shrinks, the Counterdrug program loses capability each year.
        Presidential Budget Directive (PBD-95) directed a recommended
    minimum level of National Guard Counterdrug capability, measured in
    terms of end strength, to be 2,763 Guardsmen. In fiscal year 2007, the
    National Guard Counterdrug Program would require an additional $61
    million above the President's budget to achieve this personnel level.
    The five Counterdrug schools for law enforcement officers have
    identified requirements for $20 million above the President's budget.
    Updating the sensors on the RC-26 surveillance aircraft to preserve
    viability will cost $38 million above the President's budget. These
    sensors also provide real time downlinks during crisis operations.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

        Question. General Blum, can you provide the committee your thoughts
    on the implications of the Guard becoming our nation's operational
    force instead of the strategic force of the past, and how we balance
    that with their state's missions?
        Answer. The National Guard has transformed itself from the Cold War
    strategic reserve into an operational force with a focus on joint and
    expeditionary warfare that is capable of responding to a broad range of
    civil and humanitarian crises. Whether supporting a variety of state
    missions in a domestic scenario or deploying to over 40 nations on five
    continents in the past year alone, the Guard is more ready, reliable,
    essential and accessible today than at anytime in its nearly 400 years
    of existence. Since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, the Guard
    has been employed around the world and here at home as an operational
    force in a variety of contingencies and, with the exception of those
    units mobilized for war, is still under-resourced for many of the
    missions it now performs. Army Guard units in particular remain manned
    at Cold War levels, lack a robust cadre of full-time support personnel,
    and are equipped well-below wartime requirements. Since September 11,
    2001, Guard units deploying to the warfight have been well-equipped,
    but the response to Hurricane Katrina revealed serious shortcomings in
    the equipping of Guard units for Homeland Security and Defense. Guard
    units returning from overseas came back with an average of only about
    35 percent of the equipment with which they deployed, leaving them far
    less capable of meeting training requirements and, most importantly,
    fulfilling their missions here at home. To fulfill these missions, the
    Guard's highest priorities for re-setting and re-equipping continue to
    be satellite and tactical communications equipment, medical equipment,
    utility helicopters, military trucks and engineer equipment. We must
    also ensure that this equipment is identical to the equipment required
    for wartime use so that Guard units remain interoperable with their
    active component counterparts for both Homeland Defense and Homeland
    Security operations. Additionally, we must invest in an extensive non-
    lethal weapons capability for use in both domestic and overseas
    contingencies. By re-equipping with these priorities, the Guard will be
    able to effectively and ably continue its service to the American
    people, both at home and abroad.
        Question. General Blum, as I understand it, instead of divisions
    being the centerpiece of the Army, modular brigade combat teams will be
    a strategically agile force that can ``plug into'' joint and coalition
    forces in an expeditionary manner. Could you describe what the Army
    National Guard will look like at the end of fiscal year 2007 and the
    rate at which the Army National Guard will become a modular force?
        Answer. The Army is involved in the most dramatic restructuring of
    forces since World War II. The centerpiece is modular transformation
    and an increase in the Army's operational force with the building of
    brigade combat teams (BCTs) and associated multi-functional and
    functional support brigades. The Army National Guard is building toward
    28 BCTs and 48 multi-functional and functional support brigades. The
    Army is currently conducting Force Management Review 2009-2012 to
    assess the optimum balance of force capabilities across all three
    components. A key element of this review is the collaborative effort
    with the Army National Guard Adjutants General to address warfighting
    requirements, current operational demands and potential Homeland
    Defense missions. The results of this effort may change the number and
    type of BCTs and support brigades in the Army National Guard beginning
    in fiscal year 2008.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter

        Question. I understand that the National Guard and the Active
    Components (AC) are working together to ensure the Guard and the AC use
    as many of the same analytical and reporting systems as possible to
    ensure they are compatible in combat. Will this effort, however,
    provide all of the functionality the Guard needs for normal peacetime
    operations and to rapidly and effectively respond to domestic
    emergencies?
        Answer. While DOD and the Army provide analytical and reporting
    tools our soldiers can use to operate as a cohesive enterprise, none
    have the ability to work outside of the federal force. Therefore, we
    are working on the requirements for a program, dubbed the ``National
    Guard Enterprise,'' to encompass all the National Guard requirements
    for all purposes. The program will work with all the DOD systems and
    will have the capabilities to work with state and local systems,
    provide management for all the state National Guard requirements, and
    provide the National Guard with good incident management capability.
    The North Carolina National Guard has already funded interoperable
    communications systems for themselves, and we're going to try it in our
    Joint Operations Centers at the National Guard Bureau and in several of
    the Gulf states initially and see where we can go from there. We'll
    move carefully and cautiously because I want it to work correctly, and
    I don't want any of our airmen or soldiers using a system that doesn't
    work the same as the systems used in the combat theater.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

               KIRTLAND NATIONAL GUARD'S ROLE WITH F-16 SQUADRONS

        Question. What is the long range plan for National Guard F-16
    squadrons like the New Mexico National Guard at Kirtland Air Force
    Base?
        Answer. The F-22 mission is an ideal follow-on flying mission for
    the New Mexico Air National Guard. The current F-16 block 30 platform
    is scheduled for retirement in fiscal year 2012-2017. The Air Force
    needs the high experience inherent in Air National Guard units to
    maximize the potential of the F-22. A likely organizational structure
    for Holloman Air Force Base is the ``Classic Associate'' model.

                    NATIONAL GUARD'S ROLE IN BORDER SECURITY

        Question. Existing Federal law allows the National Guard to work on
    counter drug initiatives such as building fences and barriers along the
    border. As a border state senator, I know first-hand the success these
    initiatives have had in our war on drugs.
        Last year I introduced border security legislation that would
    expand the ability of States to use the National Guard in additional
    border efforts, including building roads, participating in search and
    rescue operations, and monitoring the international border. Under my
    legislation, the National Guard would not participate in any law
    enforcement activities and would be coordinated through the Departments
    of Defense and Homeland Security.
        I believe such legislation could expand on current border security
    efforts, like an operation recently conducted in New Mexico that
    involved the U.S. Army assisting border patrol agents by surveying the
    border and notifying border patrol agents of illegal crossers.
    Additionally, I think such legislation could save lives, as the
    National Guard could participate in search and rescues operations for
    the many individuals who try to cross the border in the desert
    Southwest and suffer dehydration or worse.
        Can you tell us a little bit about the National Guard's current
    role on the international border?
        Do you believe allowing the National Guard to participate in
    surveillance efforts, search and rescue operations, and construction
    projects could be a valuable source of training for our Guardsmen?
        Answer. The National Guard has for years provided support to
    security along the Nation's borders. Some of this has been in the form
    of support to law enforcement agencies performed as part of the
    National Guard counter-drug activities in border states. Additionally,
    National Guard engineer units have participated in innovative readiness
    training in which they hone their engineering, construction, planning
    and logistics skills by building fencing along the border. Our
    experience has been that this has indeed been good training.

                 EMERGENCY POWER SOURCES FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD

        Question. I believe that as a key part of our nation's defense, the
    National Guard must have the tools it needs to protect Americans,
    including energy security that can be achieved through energy
    diversity.
        Do any of our National Guard Armories currently have alternative
    energy sources that they can utilize in emergencies?
        Have you considered what alternative energy sources might best be
    suited for our Armories?
        Answer. Some readiness centers constructed in the past several
    years have included diesel-powered emergency generators. This item
    became an official item of construction criteria in 2003 but was
    permitted as an exception to criteria on a case by case basis before
    that year.
        We have not yet been able to come up with viable alternatives to
    diesel-powered emergency generators. True alternative energy sources
    are, at this time, cost prohibitive and often technically unfeasible.

                           NATIONAL GUARD AND PLAYAS

        Question. New Mexico Tech operates a training, research,
    development, test and evaluation complex in the town of Playas, New
    Mexico. First responders, homeland security personnel, defense
    personnel and others may utilize the unique training capabilities
    offered in the remote, desert southwest town of Playas.
        I understand that you have visited Playas and seen some of its
    capabilities.
        Does the Playas training center offer special training
    opportunities to the National Guard?
        Answer. The Playas, New Mexico, facility offers National Guard
    units the opportunity to train with other government agency and
    Department of Defense first responders using interagency procedures,
    thus improving cooperation and coordination between these entities. The
    facility's unique capabilities--including use of explosives, sufficient
    airspace for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and air operations, and use
    of urban settings for military operations--provides settings and
    training opportunities that are unavailable at most training
    facilities.

              NATIONAL GUARD AND THE ARMY'S AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY

        Question. Thirty percent of the Army's Air Defense Artillery (ADA)
    is being assigned to the National Guard. Defense against rocket-
    artillery-mortar, cruise missiles, and tactical ballistic missiles are
    now required of the ADA along with their traditional mission against
    manned aircraft. Additionally, these greatly expanded capabilities must
    be very mobile for integration into the Future Combat System.
        Which ADA capabilities does the National Guard feel it can best
    support?
        How will the National Guard ADA units be able to integrate their
    training into the net-centric, mobile units of the Future Combat
    System?
        Answer. The Army National Guard (ARNG) can be successful in all
    mission areas of Air Defense Artillery (ADA), except for the theater
    missile defense mission of the Patriot system, if properly resourced.
    The key to success for the ARNG's integration into net-centric warfare
    is for proper resourcing, especially in new equipment and full-time
    manning.
                                     ______

                Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

        Question. The National Guard has played a critical role in our
    national security over the past several years. In light of their major
    role in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as their critical role
    domestically in the hurricane response this past year, General Blum,
    what role do you see the National Guard taking in order to meet the
    security requirements of the United States, now and in the future?
        How do you see the National Guard's role and mission changing in
    the next several years?
        Answer. The National Guard's role in meeting the security
    requirements of the United States will continue to evolve as the
    nation's requirements evolve, but the National Guard will continue to
    remain a hallmark of performance to the nation as it has for nearly
    four hundred years. As a transformed force capable of joint and
    expeditionary warfare, the Guard also remains capable of responding to
    a broad range of civil and humanitarian crises. The Guard fights narco-
    terrorism through our counterdrug programs. We stand guard over
    America's critical physical and cyber infrastructure. Our Airmen fly
    the vast majority of air sovereignty missions over America's cities,
    while our Soldiers man air and missile defense systems in the nation's
    capital and Alaska. We conduct peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and
    the Sinai, stand watch aboard military cargo ships as they transit the
    Persian Gulf, guard prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, and train the Iraqi
    and Afghan national armies. As recently as 2005, the Army National
    Guard contributed half of the combat brigades on the ground in Iraq. As
    much as the Guard does overseas, however, we must not lose sight of our
    responsibility at home. Our commitment to the nation's Governors is to
    not only provide each of them with sufficient capabilities under state
    control, but to also provide the appropriate mix of forces to allow
    them to respond to domestic emergencies. To meet this, the National
    Guard Bureau is committed to the fundamental principle that each and
    every state and territory must possess ten core capabilities for
    homeland readiness: a Joint Force Headquarters for command and control;
    a Civil Support Team for chemical, biological, and radiological
    detection; engineering assets; communications; ground transportation;
    aviation; medical capability; security forces; logistics; and
    maintenance capability. By focusing the Guard's priorities on
    recruiting and retention bonuses and initiatives, equipment reset and
    modernization, and obtaining critical domestic mission resources, our
    nation's future security will remain closely aligned with the
    transformation of the Guard as it continues to meet these challenges
    both at home and abroad.
                                     ______

            Question Submitted to Lieutenant General Clyde A. Vaughn
                   Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

        Question. The Committee provided the Army National Guard an
    additional $60 million for equipment in the National Guard and Reserve
    Equipment account in the fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriations Act,
    and $700 million in title IX. Can you tell us what requirements these
    funds will fill?
        Answer. The National Guard and Equipment Account helps meet the
    equipment and system requirements identified by the Chief of the
    National Guard Bureau in the document entitled ``National Guard
    Equipment Requirements, Protecting America at Home and Abroad,'' which
    was sent to members of the House and Senate last September. These
    requirements fall into ten areas: Joint Force Headquarters and Command
    and Control; Civil Support Teams and Force Protection; Maintenance;
    Aviation; Engineer; Medical; Communications; Transportation; Security;
    and Logistics. One major area of focus for the Guard is improving
    Interoperable Communications in Disaster Response.
                                     ______

              Question Submitted to Major General Charles Ickes II
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

        Question. The Committee provided the Air National Guard an
    additional $60 million for equipment in the National Guard and Reserve
    Equipment account in the fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriations Act,
    and $200 million in title IX. Can you tell us what requirements these
    funds will fill?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2006 the Air National Guard was approved
    $30 million in the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA)
    to fund equipment purchases versus the $60 million addressed in your
    question. The $30 million in fiscal year 2006 NGREA will fund equipment
    purchases to fulfill requirements in Precision Strike, Data Link/Combat
    Identification, 24 Hour Operations, Enhanced Survivability, Propulsion
    Modernization, Simulation Systems and Training. $200 million in fiscal
    year 2006 Title IX NGREA will help the Air National Guard fund
    equipment requirements identified by the Chief of the National Guard
    Bureau in the September 22, 2005, document entitled ``National Guard
    Equipment Requirements, Protecting America at Home and Abroad.'' These
    requirements include urgent needs to replace damaged and destroyed
    equipment used in support of hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, improve
    current capabilities, and modernize future capabilities. The equipment
    will enable the Air National Guard to better to respond to natural
    disasters, emerging homeland defense/homeland security needs, and
    leverage organic capabilities in support of the Global War on
    Terrorism.
                                    Reserves

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES R. HELMLY, CHIEF,
                ARMY RESERVE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
        Senator Stevens. We will now hear from the leadership of
    the Reserve components: Lieutenant General James Helmly, Chief
    and Commander of the Army Reserve; Vice Admiral John Cotton,
    Chief of the Naval Reserve; Lieutenant General Jack Bergman,
    Commander of the Marine Corps Reserve; Lieutenant General John
    Bradley, Chief of the Air Force Reserve.
        General Helmly, I understand this is your final appearance
    before our subcommittee. We want to thank you for your
    appearances in the past and your cooperation with this
    subcommittee and wish you well in your next assignment.
        We welcome General Bergman, who is making his first
    appearance before us as Commander of the Marine Corps Reserve.
    It is a pleasure to have you before us, sir, and we look
    forward to working with you.
        It really is a pleasure to have you all here. We are sorry
    that the previous round has taken a little bit longer than we
    thought, but we wanted to hear your statements. Your statements
    are printed in full in the record and we would like to hear
    your comments.
        General Helmly.
        General Helmly. Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye,
    distinguished members of the subcommittee: Thank you for your
    time today. My name is Ron Helmly, as you noted, and I am an
    American soldier.
        I am privileged today to be accompanied by two other
    soldiers of your Army Reserve: Captain--and I would ask them to
    stand as I call their names--Captain Matthew R. Brown and
    Sergeant Brianne C. Dix. Both of these distinguished members of
    our force have served in combat in Iraq. Their presence reminds
    us all of why we are here, to support the men and women who
    have answered our Nation's call to duty.
        Captain Brown and Sergeant Dix are both representative of
    all of our members and I know I speak for my fellow chiefs,
    sailors, airmen, marines, coast guardsmen as well. They remind
    us of why we lead and why we are appearing before this
    subcommittee today.
        Thank you very much, Captain Brown, Sergeant Dix.
        Senator Stevens. Captain Brown, Sergeant Dix, we thank you
    very much for being here. We appreciate it. Thank you.
        General Helmly. Senator, I hope to convey to you clearly
    today what the Army Reserve is doing to address the many issues
    involved in changing our force from an industrial age force in
    reserve to a more modern, skill-rich, complementary force that,
    when brought to duty, capitalizes on the intrinsic value of
    civilian-based skills, trains and prepares warrior-citizens who
    can compliment our Army and joint forces.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I ask that our prepared statement, which consists of our
    Army Reserve posture statement, be entered into the record as
    our prepared statement. I thank you the subcommittee for your
    time and for all you have done in the past and continue to do
    for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families,
    and I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We appreciate that.
        [The statement follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General James R. Helmly

               PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE POSTURE STATEMENT

        The 2006 Army Reserve Posture Statement (ARPS) provides an overview
    of the Army Reserve. It details accomplishments of the past year, as
    the Army Reserve continued to implement profound changes while
    simultaneously fighting the Global War on Terrorism. The Army Reserve
    understands its vital role in The Army Plan. This plan, endorsed by the
    Secretary of the Army in the 2005 and 2006 Army Posture Statements,
    centers around four overarching, interrelated strategies. The Army
    Reserve best supports The Army Plan by complementing the joint force
    with skill-rich capabilities. The Army Reserve programs, initiatives
    and requirements are designed to provide this additional support and
    are best described in the following strategies: (1) managing change;
    (2) providing trained and ready units; (3) equipping the force; and (4)
    manning the force. These strategies ensure that the Army Reserve, as an
    integral component of the Army, continues to meet its non-negotiable
    contract with the American public: to fight and win our Nation's wars.

                              TODAY'S ARMY RESERVE

        America remains a nation at war, fighting a Global War on Terrorism
    that demands the skill, commitment, dedication and readiness of all its
    armed services. Our adversary is intelligent, tenacious, elusive and
    adaptive--a viable threat to the United States' national security and
    freedom.
        By law, the purpose of the Army Reserve--to ``provide trained units
    and qualified persons available for active duty in the armed forces, in
    time of war or national emergency, and at such other times as the
    national security may require''--is a reminder that while the methods,
    tactics and adversaries we face in the Global War on Terrorism are
    drastically changed from that which we prepared for in the past, our
    Nation's dependence on the Army Reserve has not changed.
        Today's Army Reserve is no longer a strategic reserve, it is a
    complementary, operational force, an inactive-duty force that uses the
    energy and urgency of Army transformation and the operational demands
    of the Global War on Terrorism to change from a technically focused,
    force-in-reserve to a learning, adaptive organization that provides
    trained, ready, ``inactive-duty'' Soldiers poised and available for
    active service, as if they knew the hour and day they would be called.
    This fundamental shift provides significant challenges to our
    institution. Managing critical but limited resources to achieve higher
    readiness and continuing to recruit high-quality Soldiers, and
    sustaining a high tempo of operations are among the most essential of
    these challenges.
        As a fully integrated member of our nation's defense establishment,
    the Army Reserve depends on the resources requested in the President's
    budget. These funds allow the Army Reserve to recruit, train, maintain
    and equip forces to prepare for present and future missions. As
    detailed later in this document, the Army Reserve is simultaneously
    undergoing deep and profound change in how it organizes, trains, mans,
    manages, and mobilizes Soldiers and maintains its forces. We are
    reshaping the force to provide relevant and ready assets with a
    streamlined command and control structure. We are committed to
    examining every process, policy and program, and changing them to meet
    the needs of the 21st century as opposed to continuing them from the
    past. We will remain good stewards of the trust of the American public.
        The Army Reserve's future--an integral component of the world's
    best Army, complementing the joint force with skill-rich capabilities,
    skills and professional talents derived from our Soldiers' civilian
    employment and perfected by daily use--is truly more a current reality
    than a future one. Every initiative, change and request is geared to
    one end--to make the United States Army Reserve a value added, integral
    part of the Army: the preeminent land power on earth--the ultimate
    instrument of national resolve--that is both ready to meet and relevant
    to the challenges of the dangerous and complex 21st century security
    environment.
        The Army Reserve Soldier has always answered our country's call to
    duty--and we always will!

                                      Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly,
                                                   Chief, Army Reserve.

                              ARMY RESERVE HISTORY
                        HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND TODAY

        The Army Reserve is an institution with a long tradition of
    adapting to the changing security needs of the Nation. The profound
    changes currently underway today, with more than 40,000 Army Reserve
    Soldiers mobilized in support of the Global War on Terrorism, are an
    accelerated continuation of that tradition.
        1908: The official predecessor of the Army Reserve was created in
    1908 as the Medical Reserve Corps and subsequently titled the Organized
    Reserve Corps. It was a peacetime pool of trained officers and enlisted
    men that the Army mobilized as individual replacements for units in the
    world wars of the 20th century. Today, the Army Reserve makes up 67
    percent of the Army's total medical force with physicians, dentists,
    nurses and veterinarians bringing their civilian skills and experience
    to Soldiers on the battlefield.
        1916: Using its constitutional authority to ``raise and support
    armies,'' Congress passed the National Defense Act in 1916 that created
    the Officers' Reserve Corps, Enlisted Reserve Corps and Reserve
    Officers' Training Corps. The Army mobilized 89,500 Reserve officers
    for World War I (1917-1919), one-third of whom were physicians.
    Currently, more than 25,000 students at 1,100 colleges and universities
    are enrolled in Army ROTC.
        1920: After the war, the separate Reserve corps for officers and
    enlisted men were combined into the Organized Reserve Corps, a name
    that lasted into the 1950s. Today, the Army's Title 10 force is known
    as the Army Reserve.
        1940: In preparation for World War II, the Army began calling Army
    Reserve officers to active duty in June 1940. In the year that
    followed, the number of Reserve officers on active duty rose from less
    than 3,000 to more than 57,000.
        1941-1945: During World War II (1941-1945), the Army mobilized 26
    Reserve (designated) infantry divisions. Approximately a quarter of all
    Army officers who served were from the Reserve, including more than
    100,000 Reserve Officers' Training Corps graduates. More than 200,000
    Reserve Soldiers served in the war.
        1950-1953: The Korean War (1950-1953) saw more than 70 units and
    240,000 Army Reserve Soldiers called to active duty. While the Korean
    conflict was still underway, Congress began making significant changes
    in the structure and role of the Reserve. These changes transformed the
    Organized Reserve into the United States Army Reserve.
        1970s: By the 1970s, the Army Reserve was increasingly structured
    for combat support and combat service support. The end of the draft
    coincided with announcement of the Total Force Policy in 1973. The
    effect of an all-volunteer force and the Total Force Policy was a shift
    of some responsibilities and resources to the Army Reserve. Today, in
    the spirit of the Total Force policy, when America's Army goes to war,
    the Army Reserve goes to war.
        1991: Army Reserve Soldiers were among the first reserve component
    personnel called to active duty for operations Desert Shield/Desert
    Storm and were among the last to leave the desert. More than 84,000
    Army Reserve Soldiers provided combat support and combat service
    support to the United Nations forces fighting Iraq in the Persian Gulf
    and site support to United States forces elsewhere in the world.
        1993: In the post-Cold War era, the Army restructured its reserve
    components. Reduction in active-component end strength made the Army
    even more reliant on the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard. A
    1993 agreement among all three components called for rebalancing the
    preponderance of reserve component combat formations in the Army
    National Guard, while the Army Reserve would principally focus on
    combat support and combat service support. Today, the Army Reserve
    provides 30 percent of the Army's combat support and 45 percent of its
    combat service support capabilities.
        1995: Since 1995, Army Reserve Soldiers have been mobilized
    continuously. For Bosnia and Kosovo, 20,000 Army Reserve Soldiers were
    mobilized.
        2006: As of February 2006, more than 147,000 Army Reserve Soldiers
    have been mobilized in support of the Global War on Terrorism, with
    more than 40,000 still serving on active duty.

                               STRATEGIC OVERVIEW

        Today's security environment is volatile, uncertain, complex and
    ambiguous. The elements of that environment often interact randomly and
    without sufficient lead time to develop a deliberate response. The need
    for Army Reserve Soldiers and units to be fully prepared to respond,
    prior to mobilization, is paramount.
        World conditions reveal a variety of emerging challenges to our
    national security interests: Wider range of adversaries; Weapons of
    mass destruction; Rogue state armies; Cyber network attacks; Worldwide
    terrorism; and The global economy.
        National conditions present additional challenges: Protracted war;
    Homeland defense; Budget pressures; Public focus; Global War on
    Terrorism (GWOT); Disaster response/relief; Declining manufacturing
    base; and Propensity for military service.
        Within such an environment, the Army Reserve is changing from a
    strategic reserve to an inactive-duty force of skill-rich capabilities
    with enhanced responsiveness to complement the Army's transformation to
    a more lethal, agile and capabilities-based modular force. The Army
    Reserve's force structure is no longer planned as a force in reserve--a
    ``supplementary force;'' rather, it is a force that complements the
    Army and joint forces. Today's units are to be prepared and available
    to deploy with their full complement of trained Soldiers and equipment
    when the Nation calls.
        This transformation will progress as the Army Reserve continues to
    meet the ongoing operational challenges of the Global War on Terrorism,
    while simultaneously supporting other missions around the globe.

                                MANAGING CHANGE

    Accomplishments
        Since the beginning of 2005, the Army Reserve has:
      --Developed and applied a cyclic readiness and force management
            model, currently called Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN).
            Applied the ARFORGEN logic to how Army Reserve units are
            scheduled and resourced for deployment. In 2005, about 75
            percent of the Army Reserve mobilized units were from the Army
            Reserve Expeditionary Force packages using the ARFORGEN model.
      --Programmed inactivation of 18 general officer non-war-fighting
            headquarters.
      --Awarded 11 military construction contracts in 2005 to construct
            nine new Army Reserve training centers that will support more
            than 3,500 Army Reserve Soldiers in Kansas, Florida, Utah,
            Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and Colorado.
      --Awarded two major range improvement project contracts for Fort
            McCoy, WI.
      --Activated two functional commands, the Military Intelligence
            Readiness Command and Army Reserve Medical Command, providing
            focused training and force management for medical and military
            intelligence Army Reserve forces.
      --Began realignment of command and control of U.S. Army Civil Affairs
            and Psychological Operations forces from Special Operations
            Command to the U.S. Army Reserve Command to improve training
            and force management.
      --Initiated action to close or realign 176 Army Reserve facilities
            under BRAC, a higher percentage than any other component of any
            service, moving Army Reserve Soldiers into 125 more modern
            facilities.
      --Began applying Lean Six Sigma business management techniques to
            improve supporting business processes and methods.
        Transforming to meet today's demand for Army Reserve forces has led
    to the development of a host of initiatives. When implemented, these
    initiatives will accomplish the following:
      --Ensure more focused and efficient management, increasing units' and
            Soldiers' readiness.
      --Increase the number of Army Reserve Soldiers in deployable units.
      --Provide improved facilities and more effective training to Army
            Reserve Soldiers.
      --Streamline the command and control of Army Reserve forces.
      --Increase the number of Soldiers in specialties needed to support
            the GWOT.
      --Improve Army Reserve business, resourcing and acquisition
            processes.
    Focused, Efficient Management: Army Reserve Expeditionary Force
        The foundation for Army Reserve support to future contingencies is
    the Army Reserve Expeditionary Force (AREF). Incorporating a strategy
    for cyclically managing Army Reserve force readiness, AREF directly
    supports the Army's Force Generation model. AREF applies Army
    rotational force doctrine to decisions regarding training, equipping
    and leader deployment. The management system applies packaged and
    cyclic resourcing of capabilities instead of the outmoded, tiered
    resourcing model, which supported a now obsolete, time-phased force
    deployment list against prescriptive operational plans. AREF provides
    more focused, efficient support to units about to deploy by developing
    packages that can be called to duty as needed. The system also
    capitalizes on constrained resources to best utilize equipping and
    readiness dollars.
        Under AREF, most Army Reserve units are assigned to one of the
    expeditionary force packages. The packages move through a rotational
    cycle of readiness levels, ranging from reconstitution to validation
    and employment. The units in each package will have a one-year
    ``availability'' period during which they will be ``on call'' or
    deployed. AREF enables the Army Reserve to achieve a high level of
    readiness in planned, deliberate time periods and provides a means to
    program and manage resources in advance. This resourcing strategy also
    ensures that deploying units be trained individually and collectively
    on the most modern equipment and have that equipment available when
    needed.
        When fully implemented, the AREF strategy will add rotational depth
    to the force, spread the operational tempo more evenly throughout the
    Army Reserve, and add predictability to the processes that support
    combatant commanders, Soldiers, families and employers.
    Increasing the Operational Force
        In 2005, the Army Reserve began divesting itself of force structure
    that exceeded its congressionally authorized end strength of 205,000.
    The Army Reserve also began reducing the number of spaces in non-
    deploying units. These actions allow more Soldiers to be assigned to
    deployable units and to be fully prepared for mobilization. This
    process requires a substantial ``leaning out'' of our training base and
    support headquarters, while carefully maintaining high quality training
    and support services. As an example of training base efficiencies, in
    fiscal year 2005, the Army Reserve continued to develop the new 84th
    U.S. Army Reserve Readiness Training Command that resulted from the
    merger of the Army Reserve Readiness Training Center and the
    Headquarters of the 84th Division (Institutional Training). This
    consolidation improved the Army Reserve's individual training and
    leader education capabilities while creating leaner training support
    command and control structures. Reducing the number of units and
    focusing efforts to get more Soldiers into deployable units will allow
    more effective and cost-efficient management.
    Improved Facilities and Training Support: Realignment and Closure
        Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 enables the Army Reserve
    to reshape its force and command, control and management headquarters,
    improving readiness while realizing significant cost reductions.
        The BRAC 2005 recommendations became law in November 2005. BRAC
    provides the Army Reserve the opportunity to station forces in the most
    modern, up-to-date facilities possible and to redesign a Cold-War
    structure that no longer reflects current requirements. Under BRAC, the
    Army Reserve will close or realign 176 of its current facilities. This
    is a higher percentage than any other military component. Army Reserve
    units from these older centers and facilities will move into 125 new
    Armed Forces Reserve centers (AFRCs) that are shared with at least one
    other reserve component, helping support ``jointness'' and efficiency.
    This construction will eliminate duplication of facilities within the
    same geographical areas serviced by different components of our Armed
    Forces. Some of these moves have already begun. The new AFRCs will have
    high-tech, distance learning, and video teleconferencing capabilities,
    fitness centers, family readiness centers, and enhanced maintenance and
    equipment storage facilities. These dramatic changes, closely
    coordinated among Army Reserve planners and the BRAC agencies, were
    synchronized with the Army Reserve's overall effort to reduce its
    organizational structure and allow more deployable forces.
    Streamline Command and Control
        Assisted by BRAC, the executive restructuring of Army Reserve
    forces creates a more streamlined command, control, and support
    structure, develops future force units and reinvests non-deploying
    force structure into deploying units. The Army Reserve will
    disestablish the current 10 regional readiness commands (RRCs) that
    provide command and control, training, and readiness oversight to most
    of the Army Reserve units in the continental United States, and will
    reduce the number of general-officer commands.
        Simultaneously, four regional readiness sustainment commands
    (RRSCs) will be established. These RRSCs, which will be fully
    operational by the end of fiscal year 2009, will provide base
    operations and administrative support to units and Army Reserve
    Soldiers within geographic regions. For the first time, all of the Army
    Reserve operational, deployable forces will be commanded by
    operational, deployable command headquarters.
        Some of the future force brigade-level units will include support
    brigades (e.g., maneuver enhancement brigades, sustainment brigades,
    engineer, combat support, chemical and military police brigades).
        Two functional, deployable commands were converted in 2005. The
    Army Reserve activated the Military Intelligence Readiness Command
    (MIRC) at Fort Belvoir, VA, and the Army Reserve Medical Command (AR-
    MEDCOM) at Pinellas Park, FL. The MIRC is integrated with the Army
    Intelligence and Security Command, and the AR-MEDCOM is integrated with
    the Army Medical Command. The AR-MEDCOM will eventually be further
    converted to a medical deployment support command and will be
    deployable. Aviation and military police commands are two additional
    functional commands being activated.
        The result of the reshaping of the Army Reserve forces will be a
    more streamlined command and control structure and an increase in
    ready, deployable assets to support the Global War on Terrorism.
    Increasing Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Assets
        The skills required today to assist civil governments gain their
    footing are not inherently military. It is in the ranks of the Army
    Reserve where city managers, bankers, public health directors and other
    such specialists vital to stability and support operations are found.
    For example, 96 percent of the Army's current civil affairs Soldiers
    are Army Reserve Soldiers; two of the three psychological operations
    groups--with their valued skills--are in the Army Reserve.
        Over the next five years, the Army Reserve will add 904 Civil
    Affairs Soldiers and 1,228 Psychological Operations Soldiers to its
    inventory. The addition of these critical skills to the Army Reserve
    comes without additional Congressional funding; the positions will be
    transferred from the existing force.
        Additionally, the Chief of Staff of the Army has approved the
    transfer of Army Reserve Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations
    forces from the U.S. Special Operations Command to the U.S. Army
    Reserve Command. This will fully integrate Army Reserve Civil Affairs
    and Psychological Operations elements into the conventional force,
    providing dedicated support to conventional operations.
    Improving Business Practices
        The Army Reserve is aggressively incorporating Lean Six Sigma
    concepts and practices into its business processes. Six Sigma is a
    problem-solving methodology that uses data and statistical analysis to
    create break-through performance within organizations.
        The Army Reserve is embracing this program not only as an
    efficiency tool, but also as the very foundation for change. To
    demonstrate this commitment, the Army Reserve has stepped forward as a
    front-runner in Lean Six Sigma implementation within the Army. The
    Chief, Army Reserve has mandated Army Reserve leaders to constantly
    question and review current business processes within the Army Reserve
    to assess their value to readiness and to seek ways to improve
    responsiveness.
        In conjunction with the Secretary of the Army's business
    transformation order, the Army Reserve began development of its
    deployment plan and completed classroom training of five Six Sigma
    ``green belts'' (coach-facilitators), who are currently working their
    first projects. In addition, 40 senior leaders received two-day
    executive level business transformation training.
        The continuation of training is planned with a goal of
    institutionalizing the Army Reserve program fully by achieving the
    highest level Six Sigma certification within the Army staff. The
    organizational structure to support the program is being defined and
    established to ensure top-level support.
    Compelling Needs
        Continued support of Army Reserve Expeditionary Force and other
    programs associated with Army Force Generation.
        Steady funding line for BRAC-generated changes to Army Reserve
    facilities.

                       PROVIDING TRAINED AND READY UNITS

    Accomplishments
                Since 9/11:
        As of February 2006, the Army Reserve has mobilized more than
    147,000 Soldiers' more than 25,000 of those Soldiers served on multiple
    deployments.
        98 percent of Army Reserve units have provided support to current
    operations.
                Fiscal Year 2005 and beyond:
        Performed over 1,900 unit mobilizations in fiscal year 2005.
        Provided a CH-47 Chinook aviation company to support Pakistan
    earthquake relief efforts, transporting victims, relocating refugees
    and delivering supplies.
        Provided relief support in response to Indiana tornado damage,
    locating victims, draining lakes and retaining pond areas.
        Supported Gulf Coast hurricane relief efforts by flying CH-47
    Chinook helicopters and providing two truck companies to transport
    supplies, Soldiers and flood victims.
        Scheduled Army Reserve units in 2006 and 2007 to align with the
    Army Reserve Training Strategy (ARTS) to produce a trained and ready
    force using a cyclic force readiness model.
        Developed and implemented the Exercise WARRIOR to challenge units'
    collective responsiveness under stressful, contemporary operating
    environment conditions.
        Refined existing functional exercises (targeted to a specific
    branch) to LEGACY exercises to train technical skills in a tactical
    environment.
    Operations
        In December of 2005, more than 40,000 Army Reserve Soldiers were
    serving on active duty in 18 countries around the world. This is a much
    changed world from the one the Army Reserve operated in less than a
    decade ago.
        The Army Reserve is on the leading edge in training Iraqi forces.
    More than 750 Soldiers from the Army Reserve's 98th Division
    (Institutional Training), Rochester, NY, and other Army Reserve units
    returned from Iraq after spending a year training Iraqi military and
    security forces. Soldiers from the 80th Division (Institutional
    Training), Richmond, VA, replaced the 98th and continue this critical
    mission today. Their continuing efforts, in conjunction with other
    coalition forces, will enable the Iraqis to increasingly provide their
    own security, thus hastening the eventual maturing of Iraq's fledgling
    democracy. From supporting all military branches, running truck convoys
    of food, ammunition, fuel and various other items, to responding to
    ambushes and directly engaging the enemy, the Army Reserve has been an
    integral element of the U.S. military and coalition efforts in Iraq,
    Afghanistan and elsewhere throughout the CENTCOM area of
    responsibility.
    Civil Support
        In September 2005, the Army Reserve deployed emergency preparedness
    liaison officers, CH-47 heavy-lift helicopters, military history
    detachments and truck companies to assist in the federal disaster
    response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
        During the mission, the Army Reserve made available three Army
    Reserve centers to house National Guard Soldiers responding from other
    states. Additionally, the centers provided operating space for the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency and first responder
    representatives.
        The Army Reserve also provided desperately needed fuel for the
    American Red Cross in order to sustain refrigeration of perishable food
    for the evacuees.
        As recent missions make clear, the Army Reserve has significant
    numbers of potentially critical capabilities that may be needed in
    future homeland defense and security missions. These capabilities
    include skilled medical professionals who can practice anywhere in the
    United States, hazardous materials reconnaissance, casualty extraction
    from inside a combat zone, mass casualty decontamination, critical
    medical care, engineering support and water purification.
        As of September 2005, the Army Reserve, in conjunction with the
    Pennsylvania State Fire Academy, had trained and certified more than
    350 Army Reserve chemical Soldiers to the federal standard, and trained
    more than 2,400 chemical and medical Soldiers to perform mass casualty
    decontamination.
        Twenty-five Army Reserve chemical defense units are fielded with
    specialized weapons of mass destruction-response equipment for
    hazardous material and mass casualty decontamination operations.
    However, sustaining and upgrading these robust capabilities is not
    achievable under current funding levels.
    Army Reserve Training Strategy
        As the world and its threats have changed, so have the ways the
    Army Reserve approaches preparing and training its members to fight the
    nation's battles and protect its vital interests. The Army Reserve
    Training Strategy (ARTS) is the strategic training vision, establishing
    the fundamental concepts to implement the train-alert-deploy model for
    Army Reserve Soldiers. ARTS creates progressive training and readiness
    cycles, which provides priorities for resources, managed readiness
    levels and predictable training. Today's environment does not
    accommodate yesterday's ``mobilize-train-deploy'' model. Today's Army
    Reserve Soldiers must be trained and ready prior to mobilization as if
    they knew the day and hour they would be called. ARTS is a critical
    element of the Army Reserve Expeditionary Force, which supports the
    Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model. As units advance through a
    series of cumulative and progressively complex training events, each
    training phase improves the level of unit readiness.
      --During the reset/train phase of ARFORGEN, Army Reserve units begin
            reconstitution as Soldiers complete needed professional
            education and other skill-related training. The focus and
            priority is on individual training. The culminating event for
            the reset/train phase of ARFORGEN is the WARRIOR exercise; a
            multi-functional, multi-echelon, multi-component, joint and
            coalition event that improves unit proficiency at the company/
            platoon level.
      --Units in the second year of the Reset/Train force pool will
            concentrate on perfecting their collective mission tasks by
            participating in functional exercises at the squad/crew level.
            The Army Reserve conducts a wide range of functional exercises
            throughout the United States providing skill specific training
            for Soldiers and units under field conditions. For example, the
            Quartermaster Liquid Logistics Exercise provides a challenging
            collective training venue for water purification, water
            production, and petroleum, oil and lubricants (POL) units.
            Other functional exercises are conducted for military police,
            transportation, maintenance and medical units.
        The readiness and training goals for Army Reserve forces are the
    same as those for the Active component and in every instance the Army
    Reserve has provided trained and ready Soldiers. While the standards
    are the same, the conditions under which the Army Reserve prepares for
    its missions are significantly different. The limited training time for
    Army Reserve Soldiers competes with numerous civilian career priorities
    and must be used effectively and efficiently.
    Premier Training: Warrior Exercise (WAREX)
        Warrior exercises are combined arms ``combat training center-like''
    exercises. These exercises include opposing forces, observer-
    controllers and structured after-action reviews. They provide branch/
    functional training for combat support/combat service support units in
    a field environment. Future warrior exercises will also serve as the
    capstone, externally evaluated, collective training event to move Army
    Reserve units from the Reset/Train Pool of AREF into the Ready Pool.
    The 90th Regional Readiness Command conducted the first Warrior
    Exercise in June 2005 at Fort Bliss, Texas, training more than 3,500
    Soldiers.
    Experience-Based Training
        Capitalizing on recent experiences in the Global War on Terrorism
    and lessons learned, Army Reserve training continues to adapt to meet
    changing battlefield conditions and an agile, thinking enemy.
                Counter Improvised Explosive Device Train-the-Trainer (T3)
                        Course
        Initially unsophisticated and relatively easy to detect as a
    roadside bomb, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have become more
    complex in design and increasingly lethal over time. The purpose of the
    Counter Improvised Explosive Device (CIED) Train-the-Trainer (T3)
    Course is to train trainers in countering IED threats, with the first
    priority being those troops mobilizing and deploying to Iraq and
    Afghanistan. The goal is to close the tactical performance gap between
    unit pre-mobilization training tasks, conditions, standards, and the
    actual tactical environment and mission expectations in theater.
        The 84th U.S. Army Reserve Readiness Training Command at Fort
    McCoy, WI, trained 360 Soldiers during several five-day CIED T3 courses
    in fiscal year 2005. These trainers have returned to their home
    stations to integrate CIED training into their training programs. CIED
    training provides graduates the knowledge, skills and ability to
    provide expert advice to their unit commanders as they develop a
    training strategy that incorporates CIED tactics into multi-echelon,
    pre-mobilization training.
                Convoy Training
        Convoys are now combat patrols. Recognizing the dangers of convoy
    operations, the Army Reserve has developed and implemented a convoy
    training program. In addition to counter attack methods, the training
    familiarizes Soldiers with the driving characteristics of armored
    vehicles. The program focuses on three specific areas:
      --Counter Improvised Explosive Device train-the-trainer skills
      --Integration of live fire into convoy operations training
      --Development of a combat driver training program that will
            progressively develop individual driver skills and unit convoy
            capabilities as units migrate through the ARFORGEN/AREF cycle.
            An initial, individual skills development program employing
            High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) with kits
            installed to replicate the driving characteristics of up-
            armored HMMWVs was initiated in 2005.
        The priority of training is to units that are scheduled for
    deployment.
                Combat Support Training Centers
        The Army Reserve plans, after BRAC implementation, to establish two
    combat support training centers (CSTCs)--the CSTC at Fort Hunter
    Liggett, CA, and the Joint Mobilization Training Center at Fort Dix,
    NJ. These will provide much-needed training and maneuver space for
    technical and field training in austere environments, more rigorous and
    realistic weapons qualification, classroom training, and capability to
    conduct Army Reserve unit collective training as well as support the
    Warrior Exercise program described earlier. Both training centers will
    also support joint, multi-component, interagency, and convoy training;
    up to brigade level at Fort Hunter-Liggett, and up to battalion level
    at Fort Dix.
        Units in the Army Reserve must experience a combat training center
    (CTC) or combat training center-like event to validate training and
    readiness levels prior to mobilization. The Army Reserve continues to
    partner with Forces Command to incorporate its combat support and
    combat service support in the combat training center rotations.
    Additionally, the Army Reserve will assist in the development of the
    concept for exportable CTC capability for reserve component units
    unable to access training at the National Training Center or Joint
    Readiness Training Center. CTC and/or exportable training are
    essential, not only for unit preparation for mobilization and
    deployment, but also for the longer term leader development impacts
    such training experiences provide.
                Center for Lessons Learned Mobile Training Team Seminar
        The Army Reserve collaborated with the Army's Center for Lessons
    Learned (CALL) in 2005, dispatching mobile training teams (MTTs) which
    conducted four regional seminars to unit leadership teams, with a
    specific focus on those units identified for mobilization in 2006.
    These CALL MTTs provided orientations on the Islamic and Iraqi culture,
    the most recent lessons-learned emerging from theater, highlights of
    unit after action reports, and the most effective combat tactics,
    techniques and procedures. The MTT discussion topics also include a
    current Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom operations
    overview highlighting challenges units can expect during the
    mobilization and deployment process.
                The Army Reserve Leadership Development Campaign Plan
        The Army Reserve Leadership Development Campaign Plan, updated and
    operationalized in 2005, establishes requirements and integrates
    programs unique to the Army Reserve. Two of the more significant
    components are:
        The Senior Leader Training Program focuses on general officer and
    colonel-level leaders with seminars focused on organizational change,
    Army transformation and ethics-based leadership. All major subordinate
    commands of the Army Reserve Command as well as the 7th Army Reserve
    Command (Europe), 9th Regional Readiness Command (Hawaii), and the Army
    Reserve Staff have undergone this training.
        The Army Reserve Brigade and Battalion Pre-Command Course has been
    upgraded to better prepare field grade commanders and command sergeants
    major to lead Army Reserve Soldiers. In addition to a company pre-
    command course for commanders, Army Reserve company command teams
    (commanders, first sergeants and unit administrators) participate in a
    new company team leader development course to better prepare unit
    command teams for the challenges of leadership at the crucial company
    level.
    Enhancing Mobilization
        In order to enhance the readiness of mobilizing units, the Army
    Reserve is successfully using a process called phased mobilization. The
    goal of phased mobilization is to minimize unit personnel
    reassignments, enhance Soldier medical and dental readiness and skill
    training, improve unit leadership, and enhance individual skill and
    unit collective training prior to unit deployments.
        Under the phased mobilization concept, selected unit personnel
    mobilize in intervals prior to the entire unit's mobilization so that
    they may perform Soldier leader training, Soldier skill training and
    unit collective training. Phased mobilization allows selected Soldiers
    to receive individual training according to a planned and phased
    schedule that ensures they are fully trained and mission ready for
    timely mission execution. Additional funding will be required to
    support this crucial program.
    Compelling Needs
        Increase fiscal year 2007 Reserve Personnel, Army Reserve funding
    levels.
      --To resource Army Force Generation-phased training requirements
            including new equipment training, improved collective training,
            Warrior Exercises, leader education and mission environment
            familiarization training.
        Increase fiscal year 2007 Operations and Maintenance, Army Reserve
    funding levels.
      --For increased emphasis and additional operating tempo for warrior
            task and drill training; skill reclassification training,
            convoy live fire training and additional support.
      --Training equipment sets to support Army Reserve Training Centers.
      --For dedicated equipment training sets at centralized locations and
            training equipment sets for schools and deployable units.
      --To replace Army Reserve-owned Stay-Behind-Equipment left in
            Southwest Asia.
      --For Modular Force equipment needed for unit level collective
            training in a field environment and to support designated
            individual and collective training locations.
        Establishment of Combat Support Training Centers.
      --To establish and resource combat support training centers at a
            minimum of two of the Army Reserve's four primary
            installations.

                              EQUIPPING THE FORCE

    Accomplishments
                Since 9/11:
        Mobilized virtually entire Army Reserve deployable strength without
    a single unit being rejected for logistics readiness--more than 250,000
    items (50,000 transactions) cross-leveled among Army Reserve units.
        Developed and fielded a variety of logistics information management
    programs to improve situational awareness and support decision making.
        Developed and implemented innovative, effective, and economical
    methods to improve logistics readiness--500 medium tactical trucks were
    withdrawn from prepositioned stocks; used depot maintenance to upgrade
    older medium tractors; rebuilt HMMWVs withdrawn from direct reporting
    maintenance organizations.
                Fiscal Year 2005:
        All Army Reserve units in Operation Iraqi Freedom rotation in
    fiscal year 2005 mobilized at deployment criteria.
        Developed Army Reserve equipping strategy to make most effective
    and efficient use of available equipment.
        Delivered more than 3,000 M4s and 1,000 Squad Automatic Weapons
    Replacing M16A1 rifles and M60 machine guns.
        Reduced Army Reserve logistics reconstitution backlog from a daily
    average of nearly 15,000 items in fiscal year 2004 to just over 7,500
    in fiscal year 2005.
    New Equipment Strategy--How it Works
        The Army Reserve has developed a new strategy to make the most
    effective and efficient use of its equipment. The strategy includes
    maintaining equipment at four main areas: home station, strategic
    deployment sites, individual training sites and collective training
    sites. The new strategy supports the Army Force Generation and the Army
    Reserve Expeditionary Force (AREF) management systems. It ensures the
    best available equipment is provided to Army Reserve Soldiers where and
    when they need it, as they move through the pre-mobilization training
    phase of the AREF cycle to mobilization and deployment.
        While individual equipment, such as weapons and masks, will
    continue to be maintained at unit home stations, only enough of a
    unit's major items--trucks, forklifts, etc.--to allow for effective
    training and to support homeland defense requirements will also be
    there. The system allows remaining major items to be positioned at
    various other key training and positioning sites.
        In the new model, units will be moved to the equipment located at
    the training sites, rather than moving equipment to the units. Creating
    centrally located equipment pools to support directed and focused
    training will enable the Army Reserve to harvest efficiencies in
    resourcing and maintaining its equipment.
    Individual Training Sites
        Some of the equipment will be consolidated in individual training
    sites. In a site established for individual training, Soldiers qualify
    on their individual skills--specified, job-related skills (e.g., nurses
    are tested in medication procedures; lawyers, in international law).
    This is the first phase of the training cycle, followed by training at
    unit home stations.
    Collective Training Sites
        Another pool of consolidated equipment will be kept at collective
    training sites. Following home station unit training, units progress to
    collective training. Successful participation in exercises at these
    sites validates units as ready to conduct their wartime mission.
    Strategic Deployment Sites
        Some of the major end items are consolidated at Strategic
    Deployment Sites (SDSs). After inspection and assembly into unit sets,
    major equipment items are placed in controlled humidity storage at the
    SDSs. After units are validated through individual and collective
    training cycles and called to deploy, equipment at these sites will be
    shipped directly to theater.
        Progressing through individual training, home station training and
    then participating in larger exercise-driven collective training is the
    normal training cycle to prepare for a deployment. Pre-positioning
    equipment at these sites is a cost-efficient system of support.
    Compelling Needs
                Procurement of equipment to support modularity
        Night vision systems.
        Chemical/biological/radiological detection/alarm systems.
        Medical equipment.
        Light-medium trucks (75 percent do not support single-fleet policy,
    integral to training and operational efficiency).
        Medium tractors (50 percent do not support single-fleet policy,
    integral to training and operational efficiency.
                Sustainment
        Sustainment of depot maintenance levels.
        Recapitalization of tactical truck inventory.
        Army Reserve tactical maintenance contract labor to reduce
    mobilization and training equipment backlogs.

                               MANNING THE FORCE

        The Soldier has always been and remains the centerpiece of the
    Army. The Army Reserve is committed to making the best use of our most
    precious resource and is intent that those programs that affect
    Soldiers and families will be our top priority. First, Soldiers and
    their families need to know what to expect up front. The expectation of
    service in the Reserve is much changed from a decade ago. Army Reserve
    Soldiers and incoming recruits need to know that. Today's advertising
    and communications reflect the reality of the contemporary operating
    environment and the culture that surrounds this proud institution. The
    Army Reserve will not lower its standards, but will instead use a host
    of incentives and changed policies to access the best candidates for
    Army Reserve service.
        Additionally, the Army Reserve will strive to ensure that the best
    quality of care for our Soldiers and their families is provided while
    constantly working to improve the quality of life for Soldiers,
    civilians and their families. Future personnel plans will assure we can
    maintain both personnel strength and readiness. The Army Reserve
    leadership will manage personnel through accession and assignment,
    reassignment, training and retraining or reclassification.
    Additionally, leadership will manage relocation in adherence to the
    AREF and its integration into the ARFORGEN model.
    Accomplishments
                Since 9/11:
        As of February, 2006, 147,000 Army Reserve Soldiers had mobilized
    in support of GWOT, some more than once.
        Developed and refined several information technology/management
    systems streamlining accountability and business processes.
        Reduced attrition from 24.7 percent in 2001 to 22.5 percent in
    fiscal year 2005.
        Established an Army Reserve casualty affairs program and office to
    care for Soldiers and their grieving families
                Fiscal Year 2005:
        Fully implemented the Trainees, Transients, Holdees and Students
    (TTHS) Account--a personnel accounting practice that enhances the
    readiness of Army Reserve units.
        Initiated a family programs Web portal to provide information:
    www.arfp.org/cys.
        Created and fully staffed 63 mobilization/deployment assistant
    positions in communities throughout the country.
        Recognized Soldiers' sacrifices by presenting nearly 26,000 awards
    in the Welcome Home Warrior-Citizen Program.
        Realigned and enhanced incentives and benefits for Army Reserve
    Soldiers and families.
        Established an employer relations program that is building positive
    and enduring relationships with employers.
        Revised several personnel policies under the Chief, Army Reserve,
    to better lead and manage Army Reserve assets.
    Culture Change
        A critical element to support profound change in the Army Reserve
    is the cultural shift now occurring. Continuous reinforcement of Army
    Values, the expectation of deployment, the ability to think
    innovatively and leader development are all part of that cultural
    shift. While past Army Reserve advertising messages focused on
    benefits, downplaying the effort required for service, ``Honor is never
    off duty'' is now our touchstone. The Soldiers Creed and the Warrior
    Ethos are the bedrock of our force.

                    ARMY RESERVE ACCESSIONS--FISCAL YEAR 2005
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mission................................................          28,485
    Actual.................................................          23,859
    Delta..................................................          (4,626)
    Mission percent........................................            83.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recruiting
        While accessioning fell short by 16.2 percent of its goal in 2005,
    a variety of initiatives and improvements, such as those listed below,
    are underway to achieve our recruiting goals in 2006 to meet the needs
    of both personnel strength and readiness. Leaders can now access,
    assign or reassign, train, re-train or reclassify Soldiers into the
    Army Reserve more efficiently, responsively and effectively.
    Selected Reserve Incentive Program
        The Selected Reserve Incentive Program (SRIP) was crucial in 2005.
    It enhanced the recruiting of Soldiers in critical specialties to meet
    the Army Reserve readiness needs. Continued Congressional support
    listed below will be just as crucial in the upcoming years:
      --Increased bonus incentives to Soldiers reenlisting and joining the
            Army Reserve.
      --Expanding eligibility years for Reenlistment Bonuses.
      --Officer Accession, Affiliation, and the Specialty Conversion
            bonuses added to the SRIP.
      --Lump sum payment options for reenlistment bonuses with tax-free
            payments to Soldiers in the combat zone.
    Other initiatives
        Increased Enlisted Affiliation Bonuses.
        Addition of the ``High Grad'' Bonus, used to attract those
    candidates with at least 30 or more semester hours of college credit.
        Establishment of the Active Guard and Reserve Selective
    Reenlistment Bonus.
    Retention
        By taking care of Soldiers during the current pace of operations
    and war, retention goals in the Army Reserve were met. In fiscal year
    2005, the Army Reserve achieved 101.5 percent of its annual
    reenlistment goal.
    Full Time Support
        The Army Reserve's highest priority continues to be dedicated
    support to our war-fighting Soldiers. The Global War on Terrorism
    continues to place a high demand on the Army Reserve's war fighting
    formations and their ability to mobilize in a highly trained state.
    Among the most important resources that we have in ensuring
    mobilization readiness of the 21st Century Army Reserve are our Full
    Time Support (FTS) personnel: Active Guard and Reserve Soldiers (AGR),
    Department of the Army civilians and our military technicians
    (MilTechs). Congress has historically recognized the paramount
    importance of adequate FTS levels for unit mobilization readiness.
        The Army Reserve continues to maintain the maximum effective use of
    our FTS personnel to meet unit readiness requirements prior to arrival
    at the mobilization station.
        Historically, the Army Reserve has had the lowest FTS percentage of
    any DOD Reserve component.
      --In fiscal year 2005, DOD average FTS manning level was 21 percent
            of end strength, while the fiscal year 2005 total for the Army
            Reserve was 11.3 percent.
      --The projected increase for Army Reserve FTS in fiscal year 2006
            takes the level only to 11.6 percent.
      --Congress and the Army continue to support the goal of 12 percent
            FTS by fiscal year 2010 in order for the Army Reserve to meet
            minimum essential readiness levels as proposed by Headquarters,
            Department of the Army, in fiscal year 2000.
        In fiscal year 2005, the Army Reserve was tasked with FTS mission
    requirements above and beyond programmed requirements, including:
      --Replacing 78 Active component training advisers to the Reserve
            components who will be reassigned to support Active component
            missions.
      --Providing U.S. Army Recruiting Command 734 additional recruiters
            for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
        These un-programmed requirements placed an additional demand on our
    already burdened FTS resources.
    Quality of Life and Well Being of Soldiers and Family Members
        Quality of life issues continue to be high on the list of things
    that directly affect retention of Soldiers in the Army Reserve. The
    Secretary of the Army has stated:

        ``My top priority will be the well-being of Soldiers and their
    families. There is no more important aspect of our effort to win the
    Global War on Terrorism than taking care of our people.''

        The Army Reserve continues to improve its well-being efforts in the
    myriad of programs, policies and initiatives in its purview. Family
    programs remain a top priority.
                Welcome Home Warrior Citizen Award Program
        With congressional support, the Army Reserve was able to recognize
    nearly 26,000 Army Reserve Soldiers with the Army Reserve Welcome Home
    Warrior-Citizen Award in fiscal year 2005. The program ensures that
    returning Warrior-Citizens understand that their contributions to the
    mission and making our homeland more secure for all our citizens are
    recognized and appreciated by the Nation and the Army. The response to
    the program has been overwhelmingly positive in supporting efforts to
    retain Soldiers, thus increasing unit readiness. With continued
    congressional support, the Army Reserve will continue this program into
    the ongoing fiscal year and beyond.
                Well-Being Advisory Council
        This new and very dynamic structure supports all five Army Reserve
    constituent groups: Soldiers, families, civilians, retirees and
    veterans. The needs of each of these constituencies are growing; our
    programs continue to expand to meet these needs. The membership of the
    council will include a variety of individuals from the commands and
    organizations throughout the Army Reserve, including family member
    volunteers. The council will meet twice each year to consider and
    recommend disposition of well-being issues to the Chief, Army Reserve.
    The council is our integral link to the Army Family Action Plan.
                Army Reserve Child and Youth Services Program
        The Army Reserve now has a Child and Youth Services (CYS)
    Directorate staff to provide services that support the readiness and
    well being of families, including those families that are
    geographically dispersed. CYS programs and initiatives are designed to
    reduce the conflict between parental responsibilities and Soldier
    mission requirements. The Army Reserve CYS homepage is at www.arfp.org/
    cys.
                Educational Benefits
        The Army Reserve Voluntary Education Services Program is a priority
    of the Chief, Army Reserve. Continuance of these services is necessary
    as an essential incentive we provide the Soldiers of the Army Reserve.
    Army Reserve Voluntary Education Services is a DOD-mandated commanders
    program that promotes lifelong opportunities for Selected Reserve
    Soldiers through voluntary education services that enhance recruiting,
    retention and readiness of Army Reserve Soldiers.
        The Army Reserve Voluntary Education Services have continuously
    provided an array of education programs since their inception. Recent
    changes have decentralized the execution of the tuition assistance
    program to allow for management decisions to be made closer to where
    the Soldiers live and work. This also allows for tighter fiscal
    controls and better coordination between Soldiers and colleges.
        Other educational programs are listed below:
      --Montgomery GI Bill;
      --Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support Testing
            Program (DANTES);
      --Student Guide to Success;
      --Credit for Military Experience;
      --Army/American Council on Education Registry Transcript System
            (AARTS);
      --Troops to Teachers Program; and
      --Spouse to Teachers Program.
                Support to Wounded Soldiers
        The Army Reserve is dedicated to treating its Soldiers with the
    care and respect they have earned. Supporting Soldiers wounded in
    service to the country is one example of that commitment. The Disabled
    Soldier Support System was renamed the U.S. Army Wounded Warrior
    Program (Army W2) in November 2005. It continues to provide personal
    support, advocacy and follow-up for these heroes. The Army W2
    facilitates assistance from initial casualty notification through the
    Soldier's assimilation into civilian communities' services (for up to
    five years after medical retirement). Assistance includes:
      --Information about family travel to the Soldiers' bedsides;
      --Invitational travel orders for family members of seriously ill
            patients;
      --Pay issues;
      --Options for continuing on active duty; and
      --Assistance with Medical Evaluation and Physical Evaluation Board
            processes.
        Soldiers with 30 percent or greater disability ratings and in a
    special category of injuries or illness--amputees, severe burns, head
    injuries or loss of eyesight--are assessed for enrollment in the
    program. Army W2 brings the wounded Soldiers and the organizations that
    stand ready to assist these Soldiers and families together. The
    Veterans' Administration and other similar veterans' service
    organizations participate in the program.
        Some of these Soldiers may be in the process of medical
    retirements, pending other dispositions, such as being extended on
    active duty, or enrollment in the Community Based Healthcare
    Initiative, which allows selected reserve component Soldiers to return
    to their homes and receive medical care in their community.
                Base Operations Support
        The Army Reserve is committed to providing better quality of life
    services and critical support to Soldiers, their families and the
    civilian work force. The increase in base operations support for fiscal
    years 2006 and 2007 will greatly assist this effort, allowing for
    better engineering support, safety programs, law enforcement, and force
    protection, to name only a few areas.
                More Efficient Management of Officer Promotions
        Specific policy changes that were effected by the Chief, Army
    Reserve, improved our personnel management capability. By creating
    three separate reserve component competitive promotion categories, the
    Army Reserve can retain and better manage its officers. Another change
    enabled the Army Reserve to select officers based upon unique force
    structure requirements. That change will provide business efficiencies
    to better meet the manning requirements in all categories of the
    Selected Reserve, producing greater predictability and equity among all
    considered officers. The revised competitive categories meet the intent
    of Congress to match the number of officers selected for promotion by a
    mandatory promotion board to officers needed in the related categories.
                Enhanced Care for Professional Development
        Regional Personnel Service Centers (RPSCs), the Army Reserve
    military personnel management offices, will provide active personnel
    management for all Army Reserve Soldiers. Implementation of four RPSCs,
    in support of the Army Reserve Expeditionary Forces model, will provide
    standardized life-cycle management support to Army Reserve Soldiers
    regardless of where they may be in the command. This initiative relies
    on increased communication, interaction and involvement by commanders
    and their Soldiers to assure trained and ready Soldiers.
    Compelling Needs
        Continued funding for enlistment, accession, affiliation,
    conversion, and retention incentives and bonuses to meet readiness
    requirements.
        Attain minimum essential full time support level of 12 percent of
    end strength by fiscal year 2010.
        Strengthened medical and health services for Army Reserve Soldiers.
        Continued funding for Army Reserve Soldier educational services and
    opportunities (e.g., tuition assistance and scholarships).
        Continuance of the Army Reserve Welcome Home Warrior-Citizen Award
    Program.

                                 THE WAY AHEAD

        The changed conditions of warfare have greatly affected our armed
    services, including and especially, the reserve components. We are now
    engaged in a global war that will last a long time. We are on an
    asymmetrical rather than a linear battlefield. We are in a protracted
    war, not one with a defined beginning and end. The constant threat of
    attacks on our homeland, including the use of weapons of mass
    destruction, places a premium on readiness and responsiveness. Because
    of these changing conditions, the Army Reserve has implemented a host
    of initiatives that are creating deep, lasting and profound change.
        Today, the deployment of our Army and Army Reserve, is no longer
    the exception, rather it is the rule. The Army Reserve is using the
    energy and urgency of Army transformation and the demands of the Global
    War on Terrorism to change. We are changing our organization in deep
    and profound ways, from a technically focused force-in-reserve to a
    learning organization that provides trained, ready ``inactive duty''
    Citizen-Soldiers, poised and available for active service, now as ready
    as if they knew the hour and day they would be called.
        To that end, the Army Reserve will require:
      --Continued funding to support changes in personnel incentives;
      --Adequate funding to support Army Reserve Expeditionary Force
            training, equipping and maintenance strategies; and
      --Support for legislative and policy changes to support recruiting
            efforts, personnel management and mobilization.

        Senator Stevens. Admiral Cotton.

    STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL JOHN G. COTTON, CHIEF, NAVAL
                RESERVE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
        Admiral Cotton. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye.
    Thank you very much for listening here today.
        The Navy Reserve continues its full integration with the
    Navy. In terms we have used this morning, we are in the huddle.
    We are full participants on every play. Over 23,000 Navy
    reservists are on orders at this moment, providing integrated
    support to the fleet and combatant commanders in the away game;
    2,100 Navy reservists are ashore in central command, providing
    integrated combat service support.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I request that the statement is put in the record and, in
    the interest of time, like to move on. We are standing by to
    answer any questions you have, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you for your courtesies.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral John G. Cotton

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the
    Navy and its Navy Reserve.
        Our Navy Reserve continues its transformation to better support
    combat and combat service support missions throughout the world. Navy
    Reservists are no longer solely a strategic force waiting for the call
    to mobilize in a war between nation-states. They are operational and
    forward, fighting the Global War on Terror (GWOT) as Seabees in Iraq,
    civil affairs Sailors in Afghanistan, customs inspectors in Kuwait,
    logistical aircrew and Joint Task Force staff in the Horn of Africa,
    and as relief workers in disaster recovery operations in the United
    States and around the world.
        Your support in this transformation from a strategic reserve to an
    operational reserve is greatly appreciated. Congress passed legislation
    in the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act that provided force-
    shaping tools allowing the Navy to best distribute Sailors within the
    Total Force. You authorized the flexibility to transfer funds from
    Reserve Annual Training (AT) accounts to Reserve Active Duty (AD)
    accounts. You supported adding an additional $10 million for the Non-
    Prior Service Boot Camp program (Full Accession Program). This
    additional funding allowed us to kick-start the program in fiscal year
    2006. Navy is increasing funding for this program in fiscal year 2007.
        Reserve Component (RC) Sailors are serving selflessly and are fully
    integrated throughout the Department of Defense, with our coalition
    partners and with every civil support agency. Our Sailors and their
    families continue to earn our respect and gratitude for their service
    and their many sacrifices. As part of the All Volunteer Force, they
    REserve again and again, freely giving of their skills and capabilities
    to enhance the Total Force team. On behalf of these brave men and women
    and their families, thank you for your continued support through
    legislation that improves benefits for their health and welfare.
        Single Manpower Resource Sponsor.--Navy is taking a Total Force
    approach to delivering the workforce of the 21st century. The Total
    Navy consists of active and reserve military, civil service, and
    contractors. The Total Navy will deliver a more responsive workforce
    with new skills, improved integrated training and will be better
    prepared to meet the challenges of the Long War. As the Chief of Naval
    Personnel testified, the Navy is concentrating this effort in a single
    resource sponsor: the Manpower, Personnel, Training and Education
    (MPT&E) enterprise. Our Navy Reserve is an integral part of the MPT&E
    and is working closely with the Chief of Naval Personnel to best
    leverage all Navy resources to produce the greatest warfighting
    capabilities possible.
        Our ``One Navy'' goal is to be better aligned to determine the
    future force (capabilities, number, size and mix) based on Department
    of Defense and Department of Navy strategic guidance and operational
    needs. Specifically, the new MPT&E domain will deliver:
      --A Workforce Responsive to The Joint Mission: Derived from the needs
            of Joint Warfighters.
      --A Total Force: Providing a flexible mix of manpower options to meet
            warfighting needs while managing risk.
      --Cost Effectiveness: Delivering the best Navy workforce value within
            fiscal constraints and realities.
        Strategy for Our People.--To accomplish the optimal distribution of
    trained Sailors throughout the Total Force, the MPT&E is developing a
    ``Strategy for Our People.'' This strategy will provide the guidance to
    assess, train, distribute and develop our manpower to become a mission-
    focused Total Force that meets the warfighting requirements of the
    Navy.
        Each Navy Reservist fills a crucial role in the Total Navy,
    providing skill sets and capabilities gained in both military service
    and civilian life. For example, a Sailor who learned to operate heavy
    equipment on active duty, and who is currently employed as a foreman in
    the construction industry, brings both military and civilian skill sets
    to his unit or individual augmentee assignment.
        Additionally, RC Sailors can perform the same mission while
    training at home as they do when deployed. For instance, harbor patrol
    Sailors use the same core skill sets training in Portland, Boston,
    Charleston and Jacksonville harbors as they use in Ash Shuaybah,
    Kuwait. Sailors also use these skill sets when acting as first
    responders within the United States. While Hurricane Katrina was still
    crossing Louisiana and Mississippi, Navy Reserve Seabees were driving
    their personal vehicles in the eye of the hurricane to provide search
    and rescue capabilities followed by their traditional ``can do''
    reconstruction efforts. After a tornado hit Evansville, Indiana, at
    night, the local Navy Operational Support Center served as a
    communications and emergency triage headquarters, and Sailors
    immediately responded with search and rescue teams, saving lives.
        Continuum of Service.--Our Active Component (AC) and RC Sailors
    receive valuable experience and training throughout their careers, and
    our vision for the future is to create a ``Continuum of Service''
    system that enables an easy transition between statuses. We are
    building a personnel system in which Sailors can move between AC and RC
    based on the needs of the service and availability of the member to
    support existing requirements. To make these transitions seamless, the
    Navy will develop smooth ``on ramp'' and ``off ramp'' opportunities.
    Sailors will serve on active duty for a period of time, then train and
    work in the Reserve Force and, with minimal administrative effort,
    return to active duty. The Navy will offer experienced Sailors the
    ability to transition between statuses when convenient, while
    incentivizing rate changes and service assignments at the right time
    and place, all in a ``Continuum of Service'' throughout their careers.
    All Reservists, Full Time Support (FTS), Selected Reserve (SELRES) and
    even our important Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) members, will benefit
    from increased opportunities to serve and REserve.

           CHANGING DEMAND SIGNALS--NEW AND NON-TRADITIONAL MISSIONS

        Navy Sailors continue to support the GWOT in Southwest Asia, around
    the world and at home. Over 5,000 RC Sailors are currently mobilized
    and serving in various capability areas such as Navy Coastal Warfare,
    Seabees, Intelligence, cargo airlift, cargo handlers, customs
    inspectors, civil affairs, port security, medical (including doctors,
    nurses and hospital corpsmen), and on the staff of every Combatant
    Commander (COCOM).
        Operational Support.--Mobilization alone does not reflect the total
    contribution of the Navy's Reserve. On any given day, an additional
    15,000 RC Sailors are providing support to the Fleet, serving in a
    variety of capabilities, from flight instructor duties to counter
    narcotics operations, from standing watch with the Chief of Naval
    Operations staff to relief support for Hurricane's Katrina, Rita and
    Wilma. Sailors have provided over 15,000 man-years of support to the
    Fleet during the past year. This operational support is the equivalent
    of 18 Naval Construction Battalions or two Carrier Strike Groups.
        To define the Total Force requirements and maximize operational
    support, Commander, Fleet Forces Command (CFFC) commenced a continuous
    Reserve Zero-Based Review (RZBR) process in 2004. Navy and joint
    mission requirements were prioritized, followed by a thorough analysis
    of RC manpower available to meet those requirements. The ZBR continues
    to facilitate Active Reserve Integration (ARI), placing RC billets in
    various AC units where the requirement for surge capabilities and
    operational support is predictable and periodic. This capabilities-
    based review also enabled the Fleet to develop mission requirements
    that were inclusive and dependent upon skill sets and capabilities
    resident within its aligned RC.
        The Navy supports 21 joint capability areas, built on the
    foundations of Sea Strike, Sea Shield, Sea Basing and FORCEnet, and the
    Navy RC is fully integrated in all enterprises. Excellent examples of
    ARI are highlighted in CENTCOM, where 50 percent of the Navy individual
    augmentee (IA) requirement is being met by RC Sailors. Operational
    Health Support Unit (OHSU) Dallas deployed with 460 medical and dental
    specialists for 11 months, during which the unit maintained health
    clinics in Iraq and hospitals in Kuwait. These Sailors relieved an Army
    unit, set up their medical capabilities in the Army Camp, and provided
    integrated joint health care to all services.
        Navy's newly established Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC)
    integrates the RC expeditionary and combat service support capabilities
    into one Total Force command. The Naval Construction Force has 139
    units comprised of AC and RC Sailors, and Naval Coastal Warfare
    continues to rebalance active and reserve personnel to meet COCOM
    requirements.
        Fleet Response Units (FRU) are directly integrated with AC aviation
    units. FRU Sailors maintain and operate the same equipment as Fleet
    personnel, supporting the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) by providing
    experienced personnel who are qualified and ready to rapidly surge to
    deployed Fleet units. This ARI initiative reduces training costs by
    having all Sailors maintain and operate the same equipment. No longer
    are the Active and Reserve Components using different configurations
    for different missions.
        Another ARI initiative is the Squadron Augmentation Unit (SAU),
    which provides experienced maintenance personnel and qualified flight
    instructors to Fleet Replacement Squadrons (FRS) and Training Commands.
    Experienced RC technicians and aviators instruct both AC and RC Sailors
    to maintain and fly current Fleet aircraft at every FRS.
        The Reserve Order Process.--One constraint to these initiatives is
    the reserve order processes. The current system has multiple types of
    Reserve orders: Inactive Duty for Training (IDT), Inactive Duty for
    Training-Travel (IDTT), Annual Training (AT), Active Duty for Training
    (ADT), and Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW).
        In addition to multiple types of orders, the funding process for
    these various types of orders can be equally complex. Navy is currently
    evaluating process options that will streamline the system and make
    support to the fleet more seamless. In fact, efforts such as the August
    2005 conversion of Navy Reserve Order Writing System to ADSW order
    writing have already improved the situation for Sailors and the fleet
    by allowing the same order writing system to be used for both ADT/AT
    and ADSW. Additionally, the Navy Reserve is also addressing these
    issues by emphasizing and increasing ADSW usage, which is simply
    ``work'' funding for operational support to the Fleet, rather than the
    previous way of doing business with training orders for work. The
    baseline data call of required work was initiated in 2005 with an
    implementation goal of accurately funded ADSW accounting lines in
    fiscal year 2008. COCOMs continue to review operational support
    requirements and the appropriate level of funding for the GWOT and
    surge operations. Emphasizing ADSW will be a significant evolution in
    the Navy's effort to integrate its Reserve Force capabilities by
    aligning funding sources and accurately resourcing the accounts
    responsible for Navy Reserve operational support.

                          SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE FORCE

        The total number of Navy Reservists, both SELRES and FTS, is
    requested to be 71,300 for fiscal year 2007. The ongoing ZBR and
    effective ARI continue to optimally integrate the capabilities of the
    Total Force, which optimizes the force mix of AC and RC Sailors needed
    to support the Fleet while still providing effective surge operational
    support.
        Common AC/RC Pay System.--A common pay and personnel system that
    provides for a seamless transition from AC to RC is essential to the
    success of our ``Continuum of Service'' and ``Sailor for Life''
    programs. Ideally, manpower transactions will someday be accomplished
    on a laptop with a mouse click, and data will be shared through a
    common data repository with all DOD enterprises. Navy fully supports
    the vision of an integrated set of processes and tools to manage all
    pay and personnel needs for the individual, and provide necessary
    levels of personnel visibility to support joint warfighter
    requirements. The processes and tools should provide the ability for a
    clean financial audit of personnel costs and support accurate, agile
    decision making at all levels of the Department of Defense through a
    common system and standardized data structure.
        The Defense Integrated Manpower and Human Resource System (DIMHRS)
    is expected to be that system. A Deputy Secretary of Defense assessment
    is currently underway to determine the best course of action for the
    Department. The assessment will conclude in early summer.

                                   RECRUITING

        Accessions.--Navy Reserve accessions are drawn from multiple
    sources, but we are increasingly focused on the trained and experienced
    Navy veteran. Our leadership is constantly emphasizing a ``Continuum of
    Service'' and ``Sailor for Life'' themes that enable Sailors to more
    easily transition between components. The entire Total Force chain of
    command is committed to changing the culture of service and REservice
    by continually educating AC Sailors about the benefits of continued
    service as members of any of the Reserve Components.
        National Call to Service--A relatively new accession source is the
    National Call to Service (NCS), with contracts that include both AC and
    RC service as part of a recruit's initial military obligation. Congress
    first authorized this program in the NDAA 2003. The NCS program is
    enjoying considerable success, and is helping to mitigate some of the
    prior-service shortages in ratings that are critical to the prosecution
    of the GWOT. Under this program, a recruit enlists for an active duty
    commitment of 15 months after training. At the end of the commitment,
    the individual can either extend on active duty or commit to two years
    of drilling in the Selected Reserve. Navy has been particularly
    aggressive in recruiting Masters at Arms and Hospital Corpsmen for this
    program, and the first recruits are completing their AC service and
    will begin drilling in the Navy Reserve this year. Navy's success in
    attracting recruits for this program is steadily growing. We assessed
    998 recruits in 13 ratings in fiscal year 2004, and 1,866 recruits in
    23 ratings in fiscal year 2005. Navy has a goal of 2,340 NCS recruits
    in 44 different ratings this year, and will continue this successful
    program in fiscal year 2007.
        Attrition.--Attrition and recruiting are a crucial part of
    maintaining the Total Force. Fortunately, the GWOT is not having an
    appreciable affect on attrition. Yearly Navy Reserve attrition is
    currently 27 percent and has remained at approximately the same level
    for the past five years.
        Enlisted Recruiting.--Fiscal year 2006 Navy Reserve enlisted
    recruiting continues to be challenging, with 4,172 recruits attained
    out of a year-to-date goal of 4,891 as of March 31, 2006. In fiscal
    year 2005, although by the end of the year the Navy Recruiting Command
    focused on the RC mission, it only accessed 85 percent of the fiscal
    year 2005 RC enlisted goal, recruiting 9,788 against a target of
    11,491. Navy attributes the recruiting shortfalls to several causes,
    including the continued strong retention of AC Sailors. The GWOT has
    caused an increase in the number of recruits needed by the Army and
    Marine Corps, with competitive bonuses offered by all services.
        To address Navy Reserve recruiting challenges and to promote
    continued success in recruiting the active force, Navy is increasing
    the amount of enlistment bonuses for both prior service and non-prior
    service Reserve accessions. Congress combined the non-prior service
    enlistment and prior service affiliation bonus into a single accession
    authority payable as a lump sum with a maximum cap of $20,000. The
    Reserve re-enlistment of $15,000 has also been authorized as a lump sum
    payment. These programs will enhance the attractiveness of service in
    the Reserve for those currently in our targeted ratings.
      --Officer Recruiting.--Reserve Officer recruiting continues to fall
            short. The primary market for RC officers is Navy veterans and,
            as in enlisted recruiting, high retention of AC officers
            reduces the pool of available candidates.
        Other measures being taken to address the Reserve recruiting
    shortfall include implementation of expanded authorities provided by
    Congress in the fiscal year 2006 NDAA. These include: authority to pay
    Reserve Affiliation Bonuses in lump sum, enhanced high-priority unit
    assignment pay, and increases in the amount of the Reserve Montgomery
    G.I. Bill. Navy is also applying force-shaping tools to attract non-
    rated Reserve Sailors to undermanned ratings.

                                   READINESS

        In addition to having the right Sailor assigned to the right
    billet, all Sailors must be ready to answer the call to serve. They
    must be medically, physically, and administratively ready to deploy.
        Medical Readiness.--Navy Reserve is a leader in medical readiness.
    In 2002, the Navy Reserve developed the Medical Readiness Reporting
    System (MRRS) as a comprehensive tracking system for Individual Medical
    Readiness (IMR). MRRS, a web-based application with a central
    aggregating database, links with existing authoritative data systems to
    reduce data input requirements and improve data accuracy. MRRS gives
    headquarters staffs and leadership a real-time view of force medical
    readiness, and received the 2005 DON CIO IM/IT Excellence Award for
    Innovation. It is being adopted throughout the Department of the Navy
    to give Commanders the web-based tool they need to more effectively and
    efficiently measure and predict IMR.
        Navy Reserve continues to be a DOD leader in percent of personnel
    who are Fully Medically Ready (FMR). In October 2004, Navy Reserve
    reported 44 percent FMR personnel and, with an ongoing emphasis on MRRS
    utilization by all commands, showed a dramatic improvement in January
    2006 to 73 percent FMR per DOD IMR standards.
        Physical Readiness.--Navy Reserve is actively participating in
    Total Force solutions to address physical readiness. The CNO's
    ``Fitness Board of Advisors'' is exploring methodologies for changing
    the culture of fitness in the Navy to ensure a ready, fighting force.
    The Secretary of the Navy's ``Health and Productivity Management''
    group is addressing the impact of a fit force on work productivity.
    Many participants are members of both groups in order to facilitate the
    exchange of good ideas. Further, Navy Reserve is working with BUPERS to
    revise the Physical Readiness Information Management System (PRIMS) to
    more accurately capture fitness testing data.
        Administrative Readiness.--Navy Reserve tracks administrative
    readiness with the ``Type Commander (TYCOM) Readiness Management
    System--Navy Reserve Readiness Module'' (TRMS-NRRM), which provides a
    scalable view of readiness for the entire Force. This Navy Reserve
    developed system has served as the prototype for the ``Defense
    Readiness Reporting System'' (DRRS), and links to many DOD systems.
    Navy Reserve leaders have utilized accurate data for all categories and
    elements since the first data call in 2003, and can quickly determine
    readiness information for individuals, units, activities, regions, and
    any other desired capability breakouts.

                                 TRANSFORMATION

        Navy Reserve continues to lead DOD RC transformation. Through the
    Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, Navy Reserve Centers (NRC)
    are consolidating into larger, more centralized Navy Operational
    Support Centers (NOSC) on military bases, while maintaining presence in
    all 50 states and reducing excess capacity by 99 percent. Consolidation
    of smaller facilities provides a better return on investment (ROI) of
    precious RPN and OM&NR funding, with better utilization of
    administration and staff support for SELRES, while aligning with Navy
    Regional Commanders instead of separate RC Regions. Whenever possible,
    our RC Sailors have indicated a strong desire to ``flex drill'' at
    their AC supported commands, which achieves a greater level of
    readiness and operational support, as well as Total Force integration.

                                    SUMMARY

        Navy Reserve is evolving from a dispersed strategic force of the
    Cold War to an adaptive and responsive operational force that will be
    required to meet the surge requirements for future asymmetric threats.
    Change of this magnitude is not easy and challenges both AC and RC
    leadership to rapidly become more integrated while thoroughly
    communicating the vision to the Total Force. We greatly appreciate the
    full support of Congress as we implement initiatives that will better
    align AC and RC personnel and equipment, providing additional resources
    to recapitalize the Navy of the future.
        Our dedicated RC Sailors continue to volunteer to serve and
    REserve, and we are developing a ``Continuum of Service'' program to
    ensure that they can quickly support operational missions, with easy
    transitions on and off active duty. We are simplifying the order
    writing and funding processes, while allowing the customers, the Fleet
    and COCOMs, to control the resources through their Operational Support
    Officers. These initiatives will greatly reduce the administrative
    burden on both the ready Sailor and the chain of command, ensuring the
    right Sailor is in the right place at the right time with the right
    skill sets. Navy will continue to improve readiness tracking and
    reporting systems so that the Sailor will be ready to deploy when
    called, physically, medically and administratively.
        The future success of our Navy and the Nation requires dominance of
    the maritime domain, and will be dependent upon a Reserve Force that is
    ready, relevant and fully integrated. Our Navy Reserve is busy
    transforming its processes, becoming more integrated with both Navy and
    joint forces, and is more ready than ever for any tasking. We are
    providing global operational support, and our RC Sailors have and will
    continue to answer the call to ``be ready'' to support the Combatant
    Commanders and prevail in the Long War.

        Senator Stevens. General Bergman.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JACK W. BERGMAN,
                COMMANDER, MARINE CORPS RESERVE, UNITED
                STATES MARINE CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
        General Bergman. Good morning, sir, Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Inouye.
        As a first-timer here, brevity I guess is very good on all
    of our parts because time is of the essence. As the Marine
    Corps, the Marine Corps Reserve, we are still focused on
    getting that individual marine ready to go, after that to fight
    the fight, focus on the family, and focus on the funding for
    allowing our participation in the long war.
        Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I look forward to
    your questions.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, sir.
        [The statement follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Jack W. Bergman

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and distinguished Members of the
    subcommittee, it is my honor to report to you on the state of your
    Marine Corps Reserve as a partner in the Navy-Marine Corps team. Your
    Marine Corps Reserve remains firmly committed to warfighting
    excellence. The support of Congress and the American people has been
    indispensable in attaining that level of excellence and our success in
    the Global War on Terror. Your sustained commitment to care for and
    improve our Nation's armed forces in order to meet today's challenges,
    as well as those of tomorrow, is vital to our continued battlefield
    success. On behalf of all marines and their families, I would like to
    take this opportunity to thank Congress and this committee for your
    ongoing support.

                        YOUR MARINE CORPS RESERVE TODAY

        The last 5 years have demonstrated the Marine Corps Reserve is
    truly a full partner in the Total Force Marine Corps. I assumed the
    responsibility as the commander of Marine Forces Reserve on the 10th of
    June 2005, and I can assure you the Marine Corps Reserve remains
    totally committed to continuing the rapid and efficient activation of
    combat-ready ground, air and logistics units, and individuals to
    augment and reinforce the active component in the Global War on Terror
    (GWOT). Marine Corps Reserve units, Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)
    Marines, Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs), and retired marines
    fill critical requirements in our Nation's defense and are deployed
    worldwide in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgian Republic, Djibouti, Kuwait,
    and the United States, supporting all aspects of the Global War on
    Terror. At home, our Reserve Marines are pre-positioned throughout the
    country, ready to defend the homeland or assist with civil-military
    missions such as the type of disaster relief conducted recently in the
    wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
        Reserve Marines understand the price of protecting our
    constitutional rights to freedom, and even though some have paid the
    ultimate price in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, they
    continue to step forward and volunteer to serve their fellow Americans.
    The Marine Reserve Force remains strong and constant due to the
    committed marines in our ranks, our high retention and recruiting
    rates, and the ever-increasing benefits that Reserve Marines and their
    families enjoy.
        As tactics and warfighting equipment continues to change and
    evolve, our level of readiness for future challenges must be
    maintained. Reserve ground combat units, aviation squadrons and combat
    service support elements are able to seamlessly integrate with their
    active component comrades in any Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF)
    environment because they are held to identical training standards. A
    strong Inspector-Instructor (I&I) system and a demanding Mobilization
    and Operational Readiness Deployment Test (MORDT) program ensure Marine
    Corps Reserve units achieve a high level of pre-mobilization readiness.
    Marine Reserve units continue to train to challenging, improved
    readiness standards, reducing the need for post-mobilization
    certification. This ensures that these combat capable units undergo a
    seamless transition to the Gaining Force Commander.
        As we progress into the 21st century, we have seen historic and
    tragic events that have impacted our country and Marine Forces Reserve
    in ways that will reverberate for years to come. When Hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita battered the Gulf Coast, Marine Forces Reserve was
    part of both the evacuation and the relief efforts in the area. Due to
    the storms, Marine Forces Reserve Headquarters, along with our
    subordinate headquarters, were forced to evacuate the New Orleans area
    and set up temporary commands in Texas and Georgia. It was from these
    locations that we managed the mobilization and deployment of units to
    the affected areas to support relief efforts. In some cases marines
    were serving in their own communities that were devastated by the
    storms.
        As of this month, over 5,300 Reserve Marines are activated in
    support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and
    Horn of Africa operations. Of these marines, approximately 4,000 are
    serving in combat-proven ground, aviation and service support units led
    by Reserve Marine officers and non-commissioned officers. The remaining
    1,300+ Reserve Marines are serving as individual augments in support of
    Combatant Commanders, the Joint Staff and the Marine Corps. Since
    September 11, 2001, the Marine Corps has activated over 39,000 Reserve
    Marines, and more than 97 percent of all Marine Forces Reserve units.
        Since the beginning of the Global War on Terror, it has become
    necessary for the Marine Corps Reserve to increase support required for
    operations against the backdrop of a rapidly changing world environment
    accented by asymmetrical warfare and continuing hostilities. As new
    warfighting requirements have emerged, we have adapted our capabilities
    by creating anti-terrorism battalions from existing units, as well as
    provisional civil affairs groups in support of our efforts in Iraq. We
    continue to refine our reserve capabilities. Through assessment,
    projection and careful planning, we shift valuable resources to enhance
    our ability to provide required war fighting, intelligence gathering,
    Homeland security, and civil affairs capabilities.

                              RETURN ON INVESTMENT

        The Marine Corps is committed to the Total Force Concept as
    evidenced by the overwhelming success of Marine Reserve units serving
    in support of the Global War on Terror. Activated Marine Reserve units
    and individuals are seamlessly integrating into forward deployed Marine
    Expeditionary Forces and regularly demonstrate their combat
    effectiveness. Since March 2005, approximately 8,500 Reserve Marines
    have deployed in support of two troop rotations to Iraq. The combat
    effectiveness of all Reserve Marines deployed in support of Operation
    Iraqi Freedom is best illustrated by the following examples.
    Force Units
        Marine Forces Reserve has provided provisional civil affairs
    groups, air-naval gunfire liaison detachments and counter intelligence
    teams in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
        The Marine Corps has two permanent civil affairs groups and, in
    2005, formed two additional provisional civil affairs groups. The
    decision was made to expand the Corps' civil affairs capability for the
    Iraqi conflict by creating a provisional 5th and 6th Civil Affairs
    Group (CAG) of nearly 200 marines each. The 5th and 6th CAGs were
    created to ease the deployment cycles of the 3rd and 4th CAGs and to
    create additional civil affairs assets. Fourth Combat Engineer
    Battalion from Baltimore provided the nucleus for the 5th CAG, which
    was established in late 2004. The unit was rounded out by marines from
    across the country, to include two previously retired marines.
        The 5th CAG began its tour of duty in Iraq at a transfer of
    authority ceremony with the 4th CAG at Camp Fallujah on March 10, 2005.
    Led by Col. Steve McKinley and Sgt. Maj. John Ellis, the 5th CAG
    assumed 4th CAG's area of responsibility and operated throughout Al-
    Anbar Province coordinating civil affairs projects with the goal of
    restoring critical infrastructure and facilitating the transition into
    a self-governing people. The 6th CAG, led by Col. Paul Brier and SgtMaj
    Ronnie McClung, relieved 5th CAG in September 2005. After a successful
    7 month tour, they are redeploying to the United States this month.
        In addition to the contribution of the civil affairs groups, Marine
    Forces Reserve has provided detachments from both 3d and 4th Air Naval
    Gunfire Liaison Company (ANGLICO)--based in Long Beach, California and
    West Palm Beach, Florida respectively--in support of Operation Iraqi
    Freedom. The last detachment returned mid-December 2005. During its
    tour, the unit supported the multinational division headed by the
    Polish Army and consisting of troops from 14 countries. The unit was
    involved in various missions in the three provinces south of Baghdad.
    Duties ranged from calling in fire support for the coalition partners
    to providing protection for convoys. The marines were credited with
    rounding up 390 insurgents and criminals, in addition to recovering
    50,000 pounds of ordnance.
    Fourth Marine Division
        The 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, led by LtCol Lionel B. Urquhart, a
    manager for Roadway Transportation Services, and his senior enlisted
    advisor SgtMaj Edward C. Wagner, supported Regimental Combat Team 2
    (RCT-2) during Operation Iraqi Freedom 04-06.1. During this time, the
    battalion cleared the city of Hit, establishing two permanent firm
    bases there and introduced Iraqi armed forces into the city to begin
    the process of independent Iraqi control. Hit was the only city to be
    liberated from anti-Iraqi forces control by the 2d Marine Division. In
    all, the battalion acted as the regimental main effort in 15 named
    combat operations and provided support to five more named operations in
    an area covering 4,200 square kilometers. The scheme of maneuver for
    entry into the town of Kubaysah employed the first heliborne and
    mechanized combined assault in Area of Operation ``Denver.'' The
    battalion's efforts resulted in 46 detainees being convicted to
    confinement at Abu Grahb Prison, 160 confirmed enemy killed in action,
    and 25 confirmed enemy wounded in action. This battalion, which
    coalesced from Reserve Marines spread across more than seven States,
    acted as a center of gravity for RCT-2 during Operation Iraqi Freedom
    04-06.1, enabling the regiment to achieve its greatest successes.
        Fifth Battalion, 14th Marines (-) Reinforced, commanded by John C.
    Hemmerling, an attorney for the City of San Diego, with Sergeant Major
    Jose Freire, a U.S. postal carrier, as his senior enlisted advisor, was
    assigned the mission as a provisional military police battalion in the
    Al Anbar Province of Iraq. The marines of 5/14 exemplified the total
    force concept as they transitioned from a reserve artillery battalion
    into a composite battalion. The 1,000-strong battalion was comprised of
    15 active and reserve units and detachments, and integrated active and
    Reserve Marines down to the fire team level. Furthermore, drawing from
    its ranks of reservists in civilian law enforcement and active duty
    military policemen at its core, the battalion was task organized to
    conduct military police missions including convoy security operations;
    law and order at forward operating bases; operate five regional
    detention facilities; provide force protection of Camp Fallujah;
    conduct criminal investigations; recruit Iraqi Security Forces through
    the Police Partnership Program; and control 57 military working dog
    teams. The battalion is credited with processing over 6,000 detainees
    consisting of suspected insurgents, terrorists and criminals--without
    incident; safely escorted over 300 convoys throughout the Multinational
    Force West area of operations; occupying and defending Camp Fallujah
    and approximately 100 square kilometers of battle space surrounding it;
    and recruiting over 1,000 Iraqi police candidates.
        The 4th Marine Division also provided a significant presence during
    Hurricane Katrina relief efforts on the Gulf Coast. From the Commanding
    General, MajGen Douglas O'Dell--who was appointed to lead the entire
    Marine Corps relief effort--to a multitude of units from Alabama,
    Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, Missouri and other
    States, elements of the 4th Marine Division converged on the
    beleaguered area to form the marine nucleus of support. Worthy of
    particular note are the marines of the 4th Assault Amphibian Battalion
    in Gulfport, Mississippi. Immediately after the storm passed, these
    intrepid marines began combing their community in their amtracs in
    search of victims, as well as rendering assistance to local
    authorities. The last of these Marine Reserve units returned to their
    home stations on October 1.
    Fourth Marine Logistics Group
        Fourth Marine Logistics Group (MLG) continued to provide the active
    duty component and combatant commanders tactical logistics support
    throughout the six functional areas of Combat Service Support (CSS) and
    the personnel necessary to sustain all elements of the operating force
    in multiple theaters and at various levels of war. Fourth MLG has a
    well-established reputation for providing professional, dedicated and
    highly skilled marines and sailors to augment and reinforce the active
    components in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Enduring
    Freedom (OEF). During the past year's semi-annual relief of forces, 4th
    MLG deployed approximately 1,000 Reserve Marines and sailors to conduct
    tactical level logistics missions.
        Additionally, 4th MLG provided the following support to the
    operating forces as requested by combatant commanders:
      --During January of 2005, 4th MLG deployed approximately 130 marines
            and sailors to support Marine Forces Central Command's
            Logistics Command Element (LCE) located aboard Camp Lemonier,
            Djibouti. These marines and sailors from various 4th MLG
            battalions provided vital logistical and operational support to
            a mission focused on detecting, disrupting, and ultimately
            defeating transnational terrorist groups operating in the Horn
            of Africa region.
      --In April 2005, on short notice, 4th MLG deployed 13 maintenance
            personnel in support of Marine Corps Systems Command
            (MARCORSYSCOM) to a forward operating base in Iraq to assist
            with the installation of armor kits on tactical vehicles. Their
            mission proved invaluable in mitigating the personnel and
            equipment loss attributed to an emergent IED threat.
      --During May of 2005, 4th MLG provided health services support
            consisting of 20 sailors from 4th Medical Battalion to II
            Marine Expeditionary Force (II MEF) for detainee operations in
            Iraq that included medical services for personnel in temporary
            detainee facilities; maintenance of medical supplies and
            equipment; health and sanitation inspections, pre and post
            interrogation health assessments; and coordination of medical
            evacuations in accordance with the Geneva Convention.
      --June 2005 saw 4th MLG provide the nucleus staff for the provisional
            6th Civil Affairs Group.
    Fourth Marine Aircraft Wing
        Fourth Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW) units participated in a wide
    variety of operations in locations across the country and around the
    world in support of the Global War on Terror.
        Operation Iraqi Freedom activations consisted of units in their
    entirety, detachments, as well as individual augments providing
    invaluable support to the active component in the conduct of these
    operations. Marine Fighter/Attack Squadron 142 deployed 12 F/A-18 A+
    Hornet aircraft in support of OIF, where they accomplished 100 percent
    of their tasked sortie requirements. These assets were the first 4th
    MAW F/A-18s to deploy in support of OIF and the first Marine F/A-18 A+
    to deploy the Advanced Targeting Pod (LITENING) in a combat
    environment. Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron (HMM) 764 and HMM 774
    deployed to Iraq in support of OIF for their second tour. The
    deployment of these units required the transfer of 19 aircraft from
    east to west coast to facilitate training of the unit that was CONUS
    based while the other deployed. This monumental task was accomplished
    safely and efficiently. Marine Light Attack Squadron (HMLA) 775
    returned from Iraq and immediately went to work accepting 16 AH-1W and
    9 UH-1N aircraft from 3rd MAW. Immediately upon acceptance, they
    transferred six of the AH-1Ws and four of the UH-1Ns to HMLA-775
    Detachment A, which then repositioned all aircraft to Johnstown,
    Pennsylvania. Additionally, Heavy Marine Helicopter Squadron (HMH) 772
    was chosen to conduct the initial Night Vision Goggle (NVG) flight
    training evolution designed for Navy MH-53E aircrew, in preparation for
    their deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This marked the
    first time Navy MH-53 pilots were trained on NVGs in a desert
    environment. Marine Air Control Group (MACG) 48 provided numerous
    detachments, including air traffic controllers, to support the OIF.
    Marine Wing Support Group (MWSG) 47 provided continual ground refueling
    support to OEF, and ongoing detachments of engineers, refuelers, and
    firefighters to OIF.
        Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 29, 2005 east of New
    Orleans. As a result of the ensuing devastation to the gulf coast
    region, HMH-772 was the first marine squadron to participate in rescue
    efforts in New Orleans on August 31, 2005. The unit deployed four
    aircraft, which transported 348,000 lbs of cargo, 1,053 passengers, and
    720 evacuees. Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadrons (VMGR) 234 and
    452 and their KC-130 aircraft provided direct support to Special
    Purpose Marine Air/Ground Task Force (SPMAGTF) Katrina in the form of
    troop, cargo lift and humanitarian assistance to the gulf coast region:
    1,562 passengers and 1.5 million pounds of cargo were transported
    during 263 sorties totaling 535 hours. They also performed the same
    mission during the aftermath of Hurricanes Rita and Wilma. In addition
    to HMH-772, HMLA-773 provided direct support to SMAGTF Katrina in the
    form of civilian evacuation and humanitarian relief, operating out of
    Eglin AFB and NAS JRB New Orleans. MACG-48 and MWSG-47 brought their
    own specialized assistance in the form of aircraft controllers and
    logistical support. Fourth MAW continued to support Katrina relief
    efforts until October 2005.

                             ACTIVATION PHILOSOPHY

        Reserve forces have been sustained consistent with Total Force
    Marine Corps planning guidance. This guidance continues to be based on
    a 12-month involuntary activation with a 7 month deployment, followed
    by a period of dwell time and, if required and approved, a second 12-
    month involuntary reactivation and subsequent 7 month deployment. This
    force management practice has provided well balanced and cohesive units
    within Marine Forces Reserve, ready for sustained employment and
    warfighting. This activation philosophy has proved to be an efficient
    and effective use of our Reserve Marines' 24-month cumulative
    activation time limit.

                               ACTIVATION IMPACT

        As of December 2005, the Marine Corps Reserve began activating
    approximately 2,200 Selected Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR) Marines in
    support of the next Operation Iraqi Freedom rotation and 290 SMCR
    Marines in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Even with judicious
    use of our assets and coordinated planning, the personnel tempo has
    increased. As the Members of this committee know, Reserve Marines are
    students or have civilian occupations that are also very demanding, and
    are their primary careers. In total, approximately 5,464 Reserve
    Marines have been activated more than once; about 1,875 of whom are
    currently activated. As of April 2006, approximately 61 percent of the
    current SMCR unit population and 72 percent of the current Individual
    Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) population have been activated at least
    once. About 2.8 percent of our current Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)
    population is deployed in support of OIF/OEF. If you include the number
    of marines who previously deployed in an active status who have since
    transferred to the IRR, the number reaches 57 percent. This is worth
    particular note as the IRR provides needed depth and capability.
    Volunteers from the IRR and from other Military Occupational
    Specialties, such as artillery, have been cross-trained to reinforce
    identified critical specialties such as civil affairs and linguists.
        Although supporting the GWOT is the primary focus of the Marine
    Corps Reserve, other functions, such as pre-deployment preparation and
    maintenance, recruiting, training, facilities management and long term
    planning continue. The wise use of the Active Duty Special Work (ADSW)
    program allows the Marine Corps to fill these short-term requirements
    with Reserve Marines. For example, as of this month almost 4,600
    marines are on active duty under this program. Continued support and
    funding for this critical program will enhance flexibility, thereby
    ensuring our total force requirements are met.

                       MARINE CORPS RESERVE CAPABILITIES

        The Marine Corps Reserve recognizes the fiscal and security
    environment of today and the future demands required to remain
    effective, relevant and capable in support of the Total Force and
    Combatant Commanders. To this end, we have been active participants in
    the 2004 Force Structure Review Group and presently, the Capabilities
    Assessment Group. Both initiatives, discussed in the ensuring
    paragraphs, will better posture Marine Forces Reserve with a lethal
    spectrum of capabilites to support irregular and traditional warfare.
    Force Structure Review Group 2004 (FSRG 04)
        FSRG 04 convened in April-May 2004 to rebalance Marine Corps total
    force capabilities for sustained support to OIF and OEF. The effort was
    end-strength and structure neutral--with proposed new capabilities
    offset by reductions in lower priority, underused capabilities. A key
    rationale for the effort included the necessity to build more
    sustainable capabilities in job skill areas experiencing high demand
    and high personnel tempo rates. In last year's testimony we reported
    the results of FSRG 04, which called for decreasing Reserve Component
    anti-aircraft, artillery, tank, and tactical aviation capability while
    increasing anti-terrorism, civil affairs, intelligence, light armored
    reconnaissance, and mortuary affairs capabilities within the reserve
    component over a 3 year period (fiscal year 2005-07). Executing these
    actions while simulaneously supporting OEF and OIF commitments is
    challenging, and involves close collaboration among force structure,
    manpower, training, operations, logistics, facility, and fiscal
    planners. fiscal year 2006 contains the preponderance of actions which
    are well underway and by the end of fiscal year 2007, will better
    posture the reserve component to sustain the Long War.
    Base Realignment And Closure 2005 (BRAC 05)
        BRAC 05 moves us toward our long-range strategic infrastructure
    goals through efficient joint ventures and increased training center
    utilization without jeopardizing our community presence. In cooperation
    with other reserve components, notably the Army Reserve and the Army
    National Guard, we developed Reserve basing solutions that further
    reduce restoration and modernization backlogs and AT/FP vulnerability.
    Twenty-three of the 25 BRAC recommendations affecting the Marine Corps
    Reserve result in joint basing of our units. Implementation of these
    recommendations will be a challenge across the Future Years Defense
    Program. Of the other two, the Federal City in New Orleans appears both
    promising and challenging and we look forward to working with the State
    and local governments in this unique venture. The final BRAC-
    recommended move is from a Navy-hosted facility in Encino, California,
    to a Marine Corps Reserve-owned facility in Pasadena, California.

                                   EQUIPMENT

        The Marine Corps Reserve, like the active component, faces two
    primary equipping challenges: supporting and sustaining our forward
    deployed forces in the GWOT while simultaneously resetting and
    modernizing the Force to prepare for future challenges. Our priorities
    in support of the first challenge are to provide every deploying
    Reserve Marine with the latest generation individual combat and
    protective equipment; second, to procure essential communications
    equipment; third, to procure simulation devices that provide our
    marines with essential training and enhance survivability in hostile
    environments; and fourth, to provide adequate funding to O&M accounts.
    Our priorities in support of resetting and modernizing the Force
    include the procurement and fielding of light armored vehicles to
    outfit two new Light Armored Reconnaissance Companies, filling our
    remaining communications equipment shortfalls, and adequately funding
    upgrades to our legacy aircraft.
    Training Allowance
        The total wartime equipment requirement for Marine Corps units is
    called the Table of Equipment (T/E). For Marine Forces Reserve, the T/E
    consists of two parts: a Training Allowance (T/A) and In-Stores assets.
    The T/A is the equipment our units maintain at their training sites.
    Our units have established training allowances that is, on average,
    approximately 80 percent of the established T/E. This equipment
    represents the minimum needed by the unit to maintain the training
    readiness necessary to deploy, while at the same time is within their
    ability to maintain under routine conditions. The establishment of
    training allowances allows Marine Forces Reserve to better cross-level
    equipment to support CONUS training requirements of all units of the
    Force with a minimal overall equipment requirement. The amount of T/A
    each unit has is determined by training requirements, space
    limitations, and staffing levels at the unit training sites. This
    construct requires the support of the Service to ensure that the
    ``delta'' between a unit's T/A and T/E is available in the event of
    mobilization and deployment. The current Headquarters Marine Corps
    policy of retaining needed equipment in theater for use by deploying
    forces ensures that mobilized Marine Forces Reserve units will have the
    primary end items necessary to conduct their mission.
        The types of equipment held by Reserve Training Centers are the
    same as those held within the active component. However, as a result of
    the aforementioned movement of equipment into theater as well as the
    Marine Corps' efforts to cross-level equipment inventories to support
    home station shortfalls (both active and reserve), Marine Forces
    Reserve will experience selected equipment shortfalls, particularly
    communications and electronic equipment. This shortfall will be
    approximately 10 percent across the Force in most areas, and somewhat
    greater for certain low density ``big-box'' type equipment sets. The
    shortfall will not preclude essential sustainment training within the
    Force. Shortfalls are being mitigated over time by equipment procured
    through the fiscal year 2005 Emergency Supplemental as well as fiscal
    year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 National Guard and Reserve Equipment
    Appropriations.
    Individual Marine Equipment
        As with all we do, our top focus is the individual marine and
    sailor. Our efforts to equip and train this most valued resource have
    resulted in obtaining the latest generation individual combat and
    protective equipment: M4 rifles, Advanced Combat Optic Gunsight (ACOG)
    rifle scopes, lower body armor, and night vision goggles, to name a
    few. I am pleased to report that every member of Marine Forces Reserve
    deployed over the past year in support of the Global War on Terror, as
    well as those currently deployed in harm's way, were fully equipped
    with the most current individual combat clothing and equipment and
    individual protective equipment. Your continued support of current
    budget initiatives will ensure we are able to properly equip our most
    precious assets--our individual marines.
    Ground Equipment
        The ground equipment readiness (mission capable) rates of our
    deployed forces average above 95 percent. This has been accomplished by
    tapping into pre-positioned stocks in Norway and Maritime Prepositioned
    Shipping, through organic maintenance capabilities, contractor support,
    leveraging the Army ground depot capability, an established principal
    end item rotation plan, and the established pool of ground equipment
    (Forward In-Stores) which expedites the replacement of damaged major
    end items. The corresponding ground equipment readiness (mission
    capable) rates for non-deployed units average 85 percent, although we
    do have shortages in home station equipment available for training due
    to ``cross-leveling'' equipment in support of GWOT. Equipment that has
    been cross-leveled to OIF includes communications equipment, crew-
    served weapons, optics, and a reserve infantry battalion's equipment
    set.
        The harsh operating environments found in Afghanistan and Iraq,
    coupled with the weight of added armor and unavoidable delays of
    scheduled maintenance due to combat, is degrading the Corps' equipment
    at an accelerated rate. With GWOT equipment usage rates ranging from
    four to nine times normal peacetime usage depending on the end item,
    hours/miles, and operational conditions, maintaining current readiness
    levels will require extensive maintenance efforts, particularly for any
    major end items returned to CONUS.
    Aviation Equipment
        The Marine Corps Reserve operates and maintains a diverse but aging
    inventory of aircraft including: AH-1W Cobras, CH-46E Sea Nights, CH-
    53E Super Stallions, F-5 Tiger Sharks, KC-130T Hercules, F/A-18A
    Hornets, UH-1N Hueys, and Operational Support Airlift aircraft
    consisting of UC-12 King Airs and UC-35 Citations. The average age of
    our tactical aircraft is: CH-46E: 38 years; UH-1N: 34 years; F-5: 29
    years; F/A-18A: 21 years; KC-130T: 19 years; CH-53E: 17 years; AH-1W:
    12 years.
        The harsh operating environments in Afghanistan and Iraq--extreme
    temperatures, high altitudes, corrosive desert environment--have
    created maintenance challenges, negatively affected the normal expected
    service life of our rotary wing fleet, and accelerated the aging of the
    inventory. The CH-46, for example, has been utilized in support of OIF
    at 200 percent of its peacetime usage rate. With no active production
    lines for our rotary wing aircraft, maintaining our inventory in a
    mission capable status has been accomplished through an ever increasing
    workload on our enlisted maintainers, yet despite difficult
    circumstances they continue to excel. The aviation equipment readiness
    (mission capable) rates of our deployed forces averaged 82 percent over
    the past 12 months. The corresponding rate of units remaining in
    garrison averaged 74 percent over the same period.
        The President's budget request provides limited modernization
    dollars for Marine Corps Reserve (and Navy Reserve) aircraft: $2.6
    million for Adversary Aircraft (F-5 & USN F-16), $7.1 million for H-53
    series aircraft, and $30.3 million for cargo/transport aircraft (e.g.,
    KC-130T, UC-12, UC-35). Selective aircraft modernization needs
    identified in the fiscal year 2007 National Guard and Reserve Equipment
    Report and elsewhere include: AH-1W critical cockpit upgrade, CH-46
    crashworthy crew chief seats, KC-130T Defensive Electronic
    Countermeasures (DECM) and Night Vision Lighting (NVL) upgrade. With no
    new aircraft slated for delivery to the Marine Corps Reserve, it is
    essential that procurement funding continue for selective upgrade and
    modernization of legacy aircraft, as well as adequately funding the O&M
    account.
        We have mitigated aircraft reset requirements as much as possible
    through specific aircraft modifications, proactive inspections and
    corrective maintenance; however, significant reset efforts exist.
    Additional requirements for depot level maintenance on airframes,
    engines, weapons, and support equipment will continue well after
    hostilities end and our aircraft have returned to their home stations.
    Assuming no top-line increase, the magnitude of the aviation reset
    requirement cannot be accomplished within the procurement account of
    the President's budget without having detrimental impacts elsewhere
    within the Marine Corps. We greatly appreciate the support of Congress
    in providing past supplemental appropriations.
        Marine aviation is poised to undergo significant transformation
    over the next 10 years. The initial impact to the Marine Corps Reserve
    is slated to occur during fiscal year 2007 when one Reserve F/A-18A
    squadron is programmed to deactivate. Coupled with the fiscal year 2005
    deactivation of another Reserve F/A-18A squadron stemming from the
    Department of the Navy's Tactical Aviation (TACAIR) integration
    initiative, two Reserve F/A-18A squadrons will remain after fiscal year
    2007.
    National Guard And Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA)
        NGREA continues to provide invaluable support in providing
    interoperable, state-of-the-art equipment to our Reserve Marines, the
    Total Force and the ultimate customer--the Combatant Commanders. In
    fiscal year 2005, NGREA provided $50 million ($40 million for Title III
    and $10 million under Title IX) which is presently being obligated to
    procure high priority aviation and ground needs such as: Aviation
    Survivability Equipment (ASE) for AH-1W aircraft, Helicopter Night
    Vision Systems (HNVS) for CH-53E aircraft, light weight troop seats for
    CH-46 aircraft, SATCOM radios for KC-130T aircraft; significant
    quantities of communication equipment including: Integrated Intra-Squad
    Radios (IISR); PRC-117s, PRC-148s, PRC-150s; simulation devices
    including: Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer-Enhanced, Virtual
    Combat Convoy Trainer, MTVR Training Simulator; and other miscellaneous
    equipment including: Night Vision Systems, Laser Target Designators;
    Counterintelligence HUMINT Equipment Suite (CIHEP) and power
    distribution systems.
        Fiscal year 2006 NGREA provided $30 million, which was released to
    the Marine Corps for obligation in March 2006. Again focused on
    supporting current warfighter needs, this funding will procure
    communications equipment including PRC-148s and Improved Intra-Squad
    Radios, multiple simulation devices including: Virtual Combat Convoy
    Trainers, LAV Combat Vehicle Training Simulators, a Medium Tactical
    Vehicle Replacement--Training System (MTVR-TS), and other miscellaneous
    equipment including: Ground Laser Target Designators, In-Transit
    Visibility Management Package/RFID Tags, Defense Advanced GPS
    Receivers, Marine Expeditious Power Distribution Systems, CIHEP and
    alternate power supplies.
        Given the urgency of fielding this equipment to our mobilizing and
    deploying marines, we coordinate with Marine Corps Systems Command and
    other executing agencies to ensure NGREA is placed on contract and
    delivered as soon as possible.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Like the active component, Marine Corps Reserve units primarily
    rely upon a first term enlisted force. Currently, the Marine Corps
    Reserve continues to recruit and retain quality men and women willing
    to manage commitments to their families, their communities, their
    civilian careers, and the Corps. Recruiting and retention goals were
    met in fiscal year 2005, but the long-term impact of recent activations
    is not yet known. Despite the high operational tempo, the morale and
    patriotic spirit of Reserve Marines, their families and employers
    remains extraordinarily high.
        At the end of fiscal year 2005, the Marine Corps' Selected Reserve
    was over 39,600 strong. Part of this population is comprised of Active
    Reserve Marines, Individual Mobilization Augmentees, and Reserve
    Marines in the training pipeline. Additionally, nearly 60,000 marines
    serve as part of the Individual Ready Reserve, representing a
    significant pool of trained and experienced prior service manpower.
    Reserve Marines bring to the table not only their Marine Corps skills
    but also their civilian training and experience as well. The presence
    of police officers, engineers, lawyers, skilled craftsmen, business
    executives, and the college students who fill our Reserve ranks serves
    to enrich the Total Force. The Marine Corps appreciates the recognition
    given by Congress to employer relations, insurance benefits, and family
    support. Such programs should not be seen as ``rewards'' or
    ``bonuses,'' but as investment tools that will sustain the Force in the
    years ahead.
        Support to the GWOT has reached the point where 70 percent of the
    current Marine Corps Reserve officer leadership has deployed at least
    once. Nevertheless, the Marine Corps Reserve is currently achieving
    higher retention rates than the benchmark average from the prior 3
    fiscal years. As of January 2006 the OSD attrition statistic for Marine
    Corps Selected Reserve officers is 8.4 percent compared to the current
    benchmark average of 11.7 percent. For the same time period, Reserve
    unit enlisted attrition is 6.2 percent compared to an 8.5 percent
    benchmark average.
        In fiscal year 2005, the Marine Corps Reserve achieved 100 percent
    of its recruiting goal for non-prior service recruiting (5,921) and
    exceeded its goal for prior service recruiting (3,132). For our Reserve
    component, junior officer recruiting remains the most challenging area.
    We are expanding Reserve commissioning opportunities for our prior-
    enlisted marines in order to grow some of our own officers from Marine
    Forces Reserve units and are exploring other methods to increase the
    participation of company grade officers in the Selective Marine Corps
    Reserve. We are also developing some bold new changes in our junior
    officer accession programs and expect to incorporate some of the
    changes during fiscal year 2007 and plan to fill 90 percent of our
    company grade officer billets by fiscal year 2011. We thank Congress
    for the continued support of legislation to allow bonuses for officers
    in the Selective Marine Corps Reserve who fill a critical skill or
    shortage. We are aggressively implementing the Selected Reserve Officer
    Affiliation Bonus program and expect it to fill fifty vacant billets
    this year, with plans to expand the program in the coming years.

                                QUALITY OF LIFE

        Our future success will rely on the Marine Corps' most valuable
    asset--our marines and their families. We believe it is our obligation
    to arm our marines and their families with as much information as
    possible on the programs and resources available to them. Providing
    information on education benefits, available childcare programs, family
    readiness resources and health care benefits enhances their quality of
    life and readiness.
    Education
        Last year, you heard testimony from my predecessor that there were
    no laws offering academic and financial protections for Reserve
    military members who are college students. I am glad to see that there
    is movement in Congress to protect our college students and offer
    greater incentives for all service members to attend colleges. I
    appreciate Congress's efforts in protecting a military member's college
    education investments and status when called to duty.
        More than 1,300 Marine Forces Reserve Marines and sailors chose to
    use tuition assistance in fiscal year 2005 in order to help finance
    their education. This tuition assistance came to more than $3 million
    in fiscal year 2005 for more than 4,200 courses. Many of these marines
    were deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq and participated in their courses
    via distance learning. In this way, tuition assistance helped to
    mitigate the financial burden of education and facilitated progress in
    the marine's planned education goals. We support continued funding of
    tuition assistance as currently authorized for activated Reserves. I
    fully support initiatives that will increase G.I. Bill benefits for
    Reserve and National Guard service members, as they are key retention
    and recruiting tools and an important part of our commandant's guidance
    to enhance the education of all marines. The 2005 National Defense
    Authorization Act included a new education assistance program for
    certain Reserve and National Guard Service members. I heartily thank
    you for this initiative and its implementation by the Department of
    Veterans Affairs, as it has positively impacted the quality of life for
    Marine Reservists and other service members.
    Child Care Programs
        Marines and their families are often forced to make difficult
    choices in selecting childcare before, during and after a marine's
    deployment in support of the Global War on Terror. We are deeply
    grateful for ``Operation Military Child Care,'' a joint initiative
    funded by the Department of Defense and operated through cooperative
    agreements with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and the National
    Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. Without the
    fiscal authorization provided by the Senate and House, these programs
    could not have been initiated or funded. These combined resources have
    immeasurably contributed to the quality of life of our marines' and
    their families. I thank you all for your support in the past and the
    future in providing sufficient funds for these key initiatives.
    Family Readiness
        Everyone in Marine Forces Reserve recognizes the strategic role our
    families have in our mission readiness, particularly in our
    mobilization preparedness. We help our families to prepare for day-to-
    day military life and the deployment cycle (Pre-Deployment, Deployment,
    Post-Deployment, and Follow-On) by providing educational opportunities
    at unit Family Days, Pre-Deployment Briefs, Return and Reunions, Post-
    Deployment Briefs and through programs such as the Key Volunteer
    Network (KVN) and Lifestyle Insights, Networking, Knowledge and Skills
    (L.I.N.K.S.). We also envision the creation of Regional Quality of Life
    Coordinators, similar to the Marine Corps Recruiting Command program,
    for our Reserve Marines and their families.
        At each of our Reserve Training Centers, the KVN program serves as
    the link between the command and the family members, providing them
    with official communication, information and referrals. The key
    volunteers, many of whom are parents of young, un-married marines,
    provide a means of proactively educating families on the military
    lifestyle and benefits, provide answers for individual questions and
    areas of concerns and, perhaps most importantly, enhance the sense of
    community within the unit. The L.I.N.K.S. program is a spouse-to-spouse
    orientation service offered to family members to acquaint them with the
    military lifestyle and the Marine Corps, including the challenges
    brought about by deployments. Online and CD-ROM versions of L.I.N.K.S
    makes this valuable tool more readily accessible to families of Reserve
    Marines not located near Marine Corps installations.
        Military One Source is another important tool that provides marines
    and their families with around-the-clock information and referral
    service for subjects such as parenting, childcare, education, finances,
    elder care, health, wellness, deployment, crisis support and relocation
    via toll-free telephone and Internet access.
        The Peacetime/Wartime Support Team and the support structure within
    the Inspector and Instructor staff use all these tools to provide
    families of activated or deployed marines with assistance in developing
    proactive, prevention-oriented steps such as family care plans, powers
    of attorney, family financial planning, and enrollment in the Dependent
    Eligibility and Enrollment Reporting System. All of these programs
    depend on adequate funding of our manpower and O&M accounts.
    Managed Health Network
        Managed Health Network, through a contract with the Department of
    Defense, is providing specialized mental health support services to
    military personnel and their families. This unique program is designed
    to bring counselors on-site at Reserve Training Centers to support all
    phases of the deployment cycle. Marine Forces Reserve is incorporating
    this resource into Family Days, Pre-Deployment Briefs and Return &
    Reunion Briefs and further incorporating them in the unfortunate event
    of significant casualty situations. Follow-up services are further
    scheduled after marines return from combat at various intervals to
    facilitate on-site individual and group counseling.
    Tricare
        Since 9/11, Congress has gone to great lengths to improve TRICARE
    benefits available to the Guard and Reserve and we are very
    appreciative to Congress for all the recent changes to the program.
    Since April 2005, TRICARE Reserve Select has been providing eligible
    Guard and Reserve veterans with comprehensive health care. This new
    option, similar to TRICARE Standard, is designed specifically for
    Reserve members activated on or after September 11, 2001 who enter into
    an agreement to serve continuously in the Selected Reserve for a period
    of 1 or more years. Participation in the program has greatly benefited
    those Reserve Marines who have served and who continue to serve. This
    provides optional coverage for Selected Reserves after activation, at
    the rate of 1 year of coverage while in non-active duty status for
    every 90 days of consecutive active duty. The member must agree to
    remain in the Selected Reserve for 1 or more whole years. Also, a
    permanent earlier eligibility date for coverage due to activation has
    been established at up to 90 days before an active duty reporting date
    for members and their families.
        The new legislation also waives certain deductibles for activated
    members' families. This reduces the potential double payment of health
    care deductibles by members' civilian coverage. Another provision
    allows the DOD to protect the beneficiary by paying providers for
    charges above the maximum allowable charge. Transitional health care
    benefits have been established, regulating the requirements and
    benefits for members separating. We are thankful for these permanent
    changes that extend healthcare benefits to family members and extend
    benefits up to 90 days prior to their activation date and up to 180
    days after de-activation.
        Reserve members are also eligible for dental care under the Tri-
    Service Dental Plan for a moderate monthly fee. In an effort to
    increase awareness of the new benefits, Reserve members are now
    receiving more information regarding the changes through an aggressive
    education and marketing plan. These initiatives will further improve
    the healthcare benefits for our Reserves and National Guard members and
    families.
    Casualty Assistance
        One of the most significant responsibilities of the site support
    staff is that of casualty assistance. Currently, Marine Forces Reserve
    conducts approximately 93 percent of all notifications and follow-on
    assistance for the families of our fallen Marine Corps brethren. In
    recognition of this greatest of sacrifices, there is no duty that we
    treat with more importance. However, the duties of our casualty
    assistance officers go well beyond notification. We ensure they are
    adequately trained, equipped, and supported by all levels of command.
    Once an officer or staff noncommissioned officer is designated as a
    casualty assistance officer, he or she assists the family members in
    every possible way, from planning the return and final rest of their
    marine, counseling them on benefits and entitlements, to providing a
    strong shoulder when needed. The casualty officer is the family's
    central point of contact, serving as a representative or liaison with
    the media, funeral home, government agencies or any other agency that
    may be involved. Every available asset is directed to our marine
    families to ensure they receive the utmost support. This support
    remains in place as long after the funeral and is maintained regardless
    of personnel turnover. The Marine Corps Reserve also provides support
    for military funerals for veterans of all services. The marines at our
    reserve sites performed more than 7,500 funerals in calendar year 2005.
    Marine For Life
        Our commitment to take care of our own includes a marine's
    transition from honorable military service back to civilian life.
    Initiated in fiscal year 2002, the Marine For Life program is available
    to provide support for the approximately 27,000 marines transitioning
    from active service back to civilian life each year. Built on the
    philosophy, ``Once a Marine, Always a Marine,'' Reserve Marines in over
    80 cities help transitioning marines and their families to get settled
    in their new communities. Sponsorship includes assistance with
    employment, education, housing, childcare, veterans' benefits and other
    support services needed to make a smooth transition. To provide this
    support, the Marine For Life program taps into a network of former
    marines and marine-friendly businesses, organizations, and individuals
    willing to lend a hand to a marine who has served honorably.
    Approximately 2,000 marines are logging onto the web-based electronic
    network for assistance each month, and more than 30,000 marines have
    been assisted since January 2004. Assistance from career retention
    specialists and transitional recruiters helps transitioning marines by
    getting the word out about the program.
    Employer Support
        Members of the Guard and Reserve who choose to make a career must
    expect to be subject to multiple activations. Employer support of this
    fact is essential to a successful activation and directly effects
    retention and recruiting. With continuous rotation of Reserve Marines,
    we recognize that the rapid deactivation process is a high priority to
    reintegrate marines back into their civilian lives quickly and properly
    in order to preserve the Reserve force for the future. To that end we
    enthusiastically support the efforts of the National Committee of the
    Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) and have joined with
    them in Operation Pinnacle Advance, which seeks to further develop
    personal relationships with our marines' employers.

                                   CONCLUSION

        As I have stated in the beginning of my testimony, your consistent
    and steadfast support of our marines and their families has directly
    contributed to our successes, both past and present, and I thank you
    for that support. As we push on into the future, your continued concern
    and efforts will play a vital role in the success of Marine Forces
    Reserve. Due to the dynamics of the era we live in, there is still much
    to be done.
        The Marine Corps Reserve continues to be a vital part of the Marine
    Corps Total Force Concept. Supporting your Reserve Marines at the 185
    sites throughout the United States, by ensuring they have the proper
    facilities, equipment and training areas, enables their selfless
    dedication to our country. Since 9/11, your Marine Corps Reserve has
    met every challenge and has fought side by side with our active
    counterparts. No one can tell the difference between the active and
    reserve--we are all marines.
        The consistent support from Congress for upgrades to our
    warfighting equipment has directly affected the American lives saved on
    the battlefield. However, as I stated earlier, much of the same
    equipment throughout the force has deteriorated rapidly due to our
    current operational tempo.
        As I have stated earlier, NGREA continues to be extremely vital to
    the health of the Marine Corps Reserve, assisting us in staying on par
    with our active component. We have seen how the NGREA directly improved
    our readiness in recent operations, and we look forward to your
    continued support of this key program.
        My final concerns are for Reserve and Guard members, their families
    and employers who are sacrificing so much in support of our Nation.
    Despite strong morale and good planning, we understand that activations
    and deployments place great stress on these praiseworthy Americans.
    Your continued backing of ``quality of life'' initiatives will help
    sustain Reserve Marines in areas such as education benefits, medical
    care and family care.
        My time thus far leading Marine Forces Reserve has been
    tremendously rewarding. Testifying before congressional committees and
    subcommittees is a great pleasure, as it allows me the opportunity to
    let the American people know what an outstanding patriotic group of
    citizens we have in the Marine Corps Reserve. Thank you for your
    continued support.
                                     ______

           Biographical Sketch of Lieutenant General Jack W. Bergman

        Lieutenant General Bergman was commissioned a second lieutenant in
    the Marine Corps Reserve under the Platoon Leader School program after
    graduation from Gustavus Adolphus College in 1969. In addition to
    attaining an M.B.A. degree from the University of West Florida, his
    formal military education includes Naval Aviation Flight Training,
    Amphibious Warfare, Command and Staff, Landing Force Staff Planning
    (MEB & ACE), Reserve Component National Security, Naval War College
    Strategy & Policy, Syracuse University National Security Seminar,
    Combined Forces Air Component Command, LOGTECH, and CAPSTONE.
        He flew CH-46 helicopters with HMM-261 at Marine Corps Air Station,
    New River, North Carolina, and with HMM-164 in Okinawa/Republic of
    Vietnam. Assigned as a flight instructor, he flew the T-28 with VT-6,
    NAS Whiting Field, Florida. He left active duty in 1975 and flew UH-1
    helicopters with the Rhode Island National Guard, Quonset Point, Rhode
    Island. Following a 1978 civilian employment transfer to Chicago,
    Illinois, he served in several 4th Marine Aircraft Wing units at NAS
    Glenview, Illinois (HML-776, flying the UH-1; VMGR-234, flying the KC-
    130; and Mobilization Training Unit IL-1). He was selected to stand up
    the second KC-130 squadron in 4th MAW and, in 1988, became the first
    Commanding Officer, VMGR-452, Stewart ANGB, Newburgh, New York, 1992-
    1994 he commanded Mobilization Station, Chicago, Illinois, the largest
    of the 47 Marine Corps Mobilization Stations.
        During 1995 he served as a Special Staff Officer at Marine Corps
    Reserve Support Command, Overland Park, Kansas. In 1996, he became
    Chief of Staff/Deputy Commander, I Marine Expeditionary Force
    Augmentation Command Element, Camp Pendleton, California. Late 1997, he
    transferred to 4th Marine Aircraft Wing Headquarters, New Orleans,
    Louisiana to serve as Assistant Chief of Staff/G-1. Promoted to
    Brigadier General, he became Deputy Commander, 4th Marine Aircraft
    Wing.
        Transferred in June 1998 to Headquarters, Marine Forces Europe,
    Stuttgart, Germany he served as Deputy Commander. Recalled to active
    duty from April to July 1999, he was dual-hatted as EUCOM, Deputy J-3A.
    He then commanded II Marine Expeditionary Force Augmentation Command
    Element, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina until assuming command of 4th
    Marine Aircraft Wing, New Orleans, Louisiana in August 2000. In
    September 2002 he assumed command of the 4th Force Service Support
    Group, New Orleans, Louisiana. He, also, served as Chairman, Secretary
    of the Navy' Marine Corps Reserve Policy Board, 2001-2003.
        Returning to active duty in October 2003, he served as Director,
    Reserve Affairs, Quantico, Virginia. He assumed command of Marine
    Forces Reserve/Marine Forces North on June 10, 2005.
        Lieutenant General Bergman's personal decorations include the
    Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Single Mission Air Medal with Combat
    ``V'' and Air Medal with numeral ``1''.

        Senator Stevens. General Bradley.

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN A. BRADLEY, CHIEF,
                AIR FORCE RESERVE, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
                FORCE
        General Bradley. Senator Stevens, it is a pleasure to be
    here with you today, sir. I am very proud of our Air Force
    Reserve airmen who are serving this Nation. Many have served,
    thousands have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hundreds of them
    helped with Hurricane Katrina relief saving over 1,000 lives.
        Many have been responsible for what Senator Mikulski
    mentioned earlier about evacuating severely wounded soldiers
    and marines. In fact, most of the aeromedical evaculation
    capability of the United States Air Force is in the Air Force
    Reserve, and it was only in the last month that we lost the
    first soldier in flight. So for over 4 years we have kept all
    of those soldiers alive in flight, and that is a challenge, but
    the great medical progress we have made has allowed that, and
    it is the dedication of our wonderful aeromedical crews that
    has helped bring that about.
        I want to thank you and Senator Inouye and the other
    members of the subcommittee for the great support that we get
    for our Air Force Reserve. The National Guard and Reserve
    equipment account has allowed us to bring great combat
    capability to the skies of Iraq and Afghanistan to support
    soldiers and marines on the ground with great systems that
    provide for close air support. I want to thank you for that
    great support. It has been key, as General Ickes said earlier,
    to modernizing and enhancing our aircraft to keep us relevant
    and useful to our Nation.
        Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. I see you were deputy chief at
    Bergstrom. That is the last place I served in the continental
    limits before I went to China.
        General Bradley. Yes, sir.
        [The statement follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General John A. Bradley

        Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Members of the committee, I
    appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I want to thank
    you for the support you have continued to show us these past few years
    and I am happy to report it's making a difference for our forces and
    our Nation. Recently, at a Reserve Chiefs' hearing, we were asked how
    Guard and Reserve members compare to active duty when they are
    mobilized. Because of your committee's continued legislative support,
    we unanimously replied that when a Guard or Reserve member is activated
    they are indistinguishable from the Regular Air Force.
        We anticipate last year's provision to expand Selected Reserve
    member eligibility under TRICARE standard will increase medical
    readiness for mobilization. With so much attention on mobilization we
    appreciate the committee's interest in initiatives that encourage
    volunteerism because the Air Force Reserve relies heavily upon this
    means of support to meet contingency and operational requirements. In
    particular, eliminating Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) rate
    difference for orders greater than 30 days addresses a long standing
    issue that Reserve members have identified as a deterrent to
    volunteerism. Another barrier was eliminated with support of authorized
    absences of members for which lodging expenses at temporary duty
    location must be paid. This change applied the active duty standard to
    Guard and Reserve members when they are on active duty orders. In the
    coming year we will continue to seek ways to facilitate volunteerism as
    the primary means of providing the unrivaled support on which the Air
    Force has come to rely.

                           MISSION CONTRIBUTIONS 2005

        Air Force Reserve accomplishments since September 11, 2001, and
    more specifically in the last fiscal year, clearly demonstrate that the
    Air Force Reserve is a critical component in the security of our
    Nation. The Air Force Reserve has made major contributions to the
    Global War on Terror (GWOT) with more than 80,000 sorties (360,000
    flying hours) flown in support of Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring
    Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The Air Force Reserve has flown almost
    52,000 sorties in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom since 2003, with
    14,658 of those (55,781 flying hours) in fiscal year 2005. Our Air
    Force Reserve members have flown more than 28,000 sorties in support of
    Operation Enduring Freedom since 2002, contributing 5,328 sorties
    (25,409 flying hours) in fiscal year 2005. Here at home, the Air Force
    Reserve has flown more than 10,000 sorties supporting the vital Noble
    Eagle mission since 2002; 150 sorties (906 flying hours) in fiscal year
    2005. These contingency support missions include fighter support,
    Combat Search and Rescue, Special Operations, Aerial Refueling and
    Tactical and Strategic Airlift--mirroring and in conjunction with Total
    Force operations. This past year, C-130 and C-17 aircraft flew the
    majority of Air Force Reserve missions in the AOR. As you may know, 61
    percent of the Air Force's C-130 aircraft are assigned to the Air
    Reserve Components. On a recent trip, Senator Lindsey Graham witnessed
    the preponderance of Reserve Component airlift first hand and mentioned
    it at the Guard and Reserve Commission hearing on March 8, 2006.
    Senator Graham stated of the 20 sorties he flew in the OEF and OIF area
    of responsibility, only one sortie was flown by an active duty crew!

                          HOMELAND CONTINGENCY SUPPORT

        Our humanitarian efforts are equally as impressive as our wartime
    operations. The onslaught of hurricane strikes to the coastal United
    States in 2005 required a response unlike anything seen in our modern
    history. The Air Force Reserve was fully engaged in emergency efforts;
    from collecting weather intelligence on the storms, to search and
    rescue, and aeromedical and evacuation airlift. Hurricanes Katrina,
    Ophelia, Rita and Wilma drew heavily on the expert resources of our
    component to assist in relief efforts. Almost 1,500 Air Force Reserve
    personnel responded to these efforts within 24 hours, including members
    from the 926th Fighter Wing at NAS New Orleans, Louisiana and the 403rd
    Wing at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi who were struggling to
    protect their own unit's resources from storm damage.
        Two units that stood especially tall amongst our Reservists were
    the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, also known as the Hurricane
    Hunters, based at Keesler Air Force Base and the 920th Rescue Wing
    based at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. The Hurricane Hunters flew
    59 sorties with their new WC-130J aircraft into the eye of hurricanes
    and tropical storms to determine the strength and path of the weather
    systems even while their homes were being destroyed. Even after they
    had lost everything, they continued to perform their mission flawlessly
    from Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Georgia. The 920th Rescue Wing, the
    first unit on the scene, flew more than 100 sorties in their HH-60G
    helicopters, recovering 1,044 people who were threatened by the rising
    water.
        At the same time, other Reserve airlift units from around the
    country were responding with medical and evacuation teams that assisted
    in the transfer of more than 5,414 passengers and patients within and
    from affected areas. In fact, the Air Force Reserve accounted for more
    than 80 percent of aeromedical evacuations. Combined rescue and airlift
    missions over the 60-day period of these storms surpassed 500 sorties
    and transported 3,321 tons of relief cargo. Additionally, to combat
    insect-borne illnesses such as malaria, West Nile virus and
    encephalitis that often gain footholds during natural disasters, our
    910th Airlift Wing from Youngstown ARS, Ohio utilized their C-130's to
    spray 10,746 gallons of insecticide across 2.9 million acres. This
    equates to an area roughly the size of Connecticut and spanned
    locations from Texas to Florida. Interagency coordination with State
    and Federal organizations also resulted in the Air Force Reserve
    assisting in the areas of communications, civil engineering, security
    forces, food services, public affairs and chaplaincy support to aid in
    overall relief efforts.

                   OUR PEOPLE: MOBILIZATION VS. VOLUNTEERISM

        As these tremendous efforts clearly demonstrate, the backbone of
    the Air Force Reserve is our people because they enable our mission
    accomplishment. These patriots, comprised of traditional unit
    reservists, Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs), Air Reserve
    Technicians (ARTs), Active Guard and Reserve (AGRs), and civilians,
    continue to dedicate themselves to protecting the freedoms and security
    of the American people. The operations tempo to meet the combatant
    commanders' requirements since September 11, 2001 remains high, and is
    not expected to decline significantly in the near future. A key metric
    that reflects this reality is the number of days our Reserve aircrew
    members are performing military duty. In calendar year 2005, each of
    our aircrew members served an average of 91 days of military duty. This
    is a significant increase compared to an average 43 days of military
    duty per aircrew member in calendar year 2000, the last full calendar
    year before the start of the GWOT, and more than double the minimum
    number of participation days required.
        Having maximized the use of the President's Partial Mobilization
    Authority, the Air Force Reserve has begun to rely more heavily on
    volunteerism versus significant additional mobilization to meet the
    continuing Air Force requirements since September 11, 2001. There are
    several critical operational units and military functional areas that
    must have volunteers to meet ongoing mission requirements because they
    are near the 24-month mobilization authority. These include C-130, MC-
    130, B-52, HH-60, HC-130, E-3 AWACS, and Security Forces. During
    CY2005, the Air Force Reserve had 6,453 members mobilized and another
    3,296 volunteers who served in lieu of mobilization to support GWOT. As
    the 2005 calendar year closed, the Air Force Reserve had 2,770
    volunteers serving full-time to meet GWOT requirements and 2,553
    Reservists mobilized for contingency operations. We expect this mix to
    become increasingly volunteer-based as this ``Long War'' continues.
        The key to increasing volunteerism, and enabling us to bring more
    to the fight, is flexibility. To eliminate barriers to volunteerism,
    the Air Force Reserve has several on-going initiatives to better match
    volunteers' desires and skill sets to the combatant commanders' mission
    requirements. For example, the Integrated Process Team we chartered to
    improve our volunteer process recently developed a prototype web-based
    tool. It gives the reservist the ability to see all the positions
    validated for combatant commanders and allows the Air Force Reserve to
    see all qualified volunteers for placement. We must have the core
    capability to always match the right person to the right job at the
    right time. We also expect volunteerism will be positively affected as
    a result of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2005. This act
    fosters more continuity in volunteerism because it adds flexibility to
    end-strength accounting rules and provides equal benefits for activated
    personnel. Facilitating the reservists' ability to volunteer provides
    more control for the military member, their family, employer and
    commander. In turn, this predictability allows more advanced planning,
    lessens disruptions, and ultimately, enables more volunteer
    opportunities.

                           SHAPING THE RESERVE FORCE

        As an equal partner in the Air Force Transformation Flight Plan
    (PBD720), the Air Force Reserve plans to realign resources to transform
    to a more lethal, more agile, streamlined force with an increased
    emphasis on the warfighter. In this process, we plan to eliminate
    redundancies and streamline organizations, which will create a more
    capable force of military, civilians, and contractors while freeing up
    resources for Total Force recapitalization. No personnel reductions
    exist as a result of the Air Force Transformation Flight Plan in fiscal
    year 2007. Our reductions begin in fiscal year 2008. Over the FYDP the
    Air Force Reserve is planning for a reduction from 74,900 authorized
    personnel in fiscal year 2006 to an end strength of 67,800 personnel at
    the end of fiscal year 2011.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        The Air Force Reserve has experienced satisfactory retention, while
    simultaneously meeting our recruiting goals for a fifth consecutive
    year. I am proud of the fact that our Reservists contribute directly to
    the warfighting effort every day. When our Reserve Airmen are engaged
    in operations that employ their skills and training, there is a sense
    of reward and satisfaction that is not quantifiable. I attribute much
    of the success of our recruiting and retention to the meaningful
    participation of our airmen.
        That being said, the 10 percent reduction in personnel planned over
    the FYDP, coupled with the impact of BRAC initiatives, presents
    significant future recruiting and retention challenges for the Air
    Force Reserve. With the personnel reductions beginning in fiscal year
    2008 and the realignment and closure of Reserve installations due to
    BRAC, approximately 20 percent of our force will be directly impacted
    by the planned changes through new and emerging missions, and mission
    adjustments to satisfy Air Force requirements. In light of all these
    changes, we expect the recruiting and retention environment will be
    turbulent, dynamic and challenging.
        Unlike the Regular Air Force, the Air Force Reserve does not have
    an assignment capability with command-leveling mechanisms that assist
    in the smooth transition of forces from drawdown organizations into
    expanding organizations. In drawdown organizations, the focus will be
    on maintaining mission capability until the last day of operations,
    while also trying to retain as much of the force as possible and
    placing them in other Air Force Reserve organizations. To accomplish
    this, we need to employ force management initiatives that will provide
    our affected units with options to retain our highly trained personnel.
        This contrasts greatly with the organizations gaining new missions
    and/or authorizations. It's important to remember that the Air Force
    Reserve is a local force and that growing units will face significant
    recruiting challenges when considering the availability of adequately
    qualified and trained personnel. As has always been the case, we will
    focus on maximizing prior service accessions. Regular Air Force
    reductions over the FYDP may prove beneficial to our recruiting efforts
    but will not be the complete answer since the Regular Air Force
    critical skills closely match those in the Reserve. ``Other prior
    service'' individuals accessed by the Reserve will inevitably require
    extensive retraining which is costly. The bottom line is that retaining
    highly trained individuals is paramount. Retention must be considered
    from a total force perspective, and any force drawdown incentives
    should include Selected Reserve participation as a viable option. It is
    imperative legislation does not include any language that would provide
    a disincentive to Reserve Component affiliation. Recruiting and
    retaining our experienced members is the best investment the country
    can make because it ensures a force that is ready, and able to go to
    war at any time.

                          BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

        Recruiting and retention are particularly important when
    considering the significant impact of the 2005 BRAC recommendations.
    The Air Force Reserve had seven bases realigned and one, General Billy
    Mitchell Field in Milwaukee, Wisconsin closed. To our Reserve Airmen, a
    base realignment, in many cases, is essentially a closure. When BRAC
    recommended the realignment of our wing at Naval Air Station New
    Orleans, our airplanes were distributed to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana and
    Whiteman AFB, Missouri, while the remaining Expeditionary Combat
    Support was sent to Buckley AFB, Colorado. In another example, BRAC
    recommended the realignment of our wing at Selfridge ANGB, Michigan and
    directed the manpower be moved to MacDill AFB, Florida to associate
    with the Regular Air Force. New Orleans, Louisiana to Denver, Colorado
    and Selfridge, Michigan to Tampa, Florida are challenging commutes for
    even the most dedicated reservist. These are just a few examples of the
    impact base realignments have on our reservists. In the majority of
    realignments, ability to serve is hindered due to the distances they
    must travel to participate. In the post-BRAC environment, we continue
    to strive to retain the experience of our highly trained personnel. We
    are working closely with the Air Force and the Office of the Secretary
    of Defense, on initiatives that will encourage those who were impacted
    by BRAC decisions to continue to serve.

                                 FAMILY SUPPORT

        The military commitment that reservists make has a profound effect
    on their families. The stresses of the military lifestyle; the
    possibility of unexpected deployments, often into areas of unrest, can
    play havoc on a family unit. Family Readiness offers a variety of
    services to support military families during these stressful times.
    Family Readiness offices provide the following services for the
    families of deployed Reservists:
      --Family readiness data card completed by member at deployment for
            special needs
      --Video telephones available at deployed site and unit site
      --FAMNET (Family Support Global Communication Network) available at
            63 countries (Internet access not required)
      --Joint inter-service family assistance services
      --Crisis intervention assistance
      --Volunteer opportunities
      --Reunion activities
      --Information and referral services to appropriate support agencies
      --Assistance with financial questions and concerns
      --Telephone tree roster for communication to the families from the
            unit
      --Family support groups
      --Morale calls
      --Letter writing kits for children
      --E-mail
        Amazingly, there are only 21 full-time positions throughout the Air
    Force Reserve to handle all these responsibilities. Family Readiness
    offices support Reserve Component members during times of mobilization
    and also with operational missions. In May 2005, Dobbins Air Reserve
    Base, Georgia held a recognition event for family members and brought
    agencies from across the spectrum to answer questions. A few months
    later they found themselves playing host to displaced Reserve Component
    members and their families from Hurricane Katrina.
        According to the Family Readiness Office at Headquarters Air Force
    Reserve Command (AFRC), family members are displaying the effects of
    mobilization and seeking assistance from readiness offices and
    organizations like One Source. In 2005 there was a 12 percent increase
    in usage of Air Force Reserve Family Readiness support. The top issues
    follow:
    AFRC Top Issues
      --Emotional well-being
      --Stress from repeated deployments and length.
    One Source Top Issues
      --Emotional well-being
      --Financial
      --Personal and family readiness issues
      --Parenting and everyday issues
      --Education (suddenly being military).
        The command has seen a 38 percent usage of face-to-face counseling
    service through free developmental counseling of 6 sessions offered per
    issue at no cost. A provider is found within 30 miles of residence
    rather than just at the closest military installation. In these
    sessions there is a focus on grief and loss, reintegrating couples in
    their relationship and achieving work/life balance.
        Improving family readiness programs by strengthening connections
    with the family, helping them be better prepared, and having a
    proactive outreach program to ensure unit, individual and family
    readiness are a few of the necessary developments.
        Just as Reserve Component members are participating at far greater
    rates, our Family Readiness is a 365-day a year program. Although we
    now have demobilization training, it is more difficult to
    institutionalize because members want to get home. When they finally
    recognize they need help, we are left scrambling to provide assistance.
    This is even more difficult at units like Peterson Air Force Base,
    Colorado and Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama where Family Readiness is
    an additional duty. The command is working on how to best meet these
    growing requirements. One thing that hasn't changed is that families
    are proud of the military member's role in fighting the war on terror.

                             ONE TIER OF READINESS

        We in the Air Force Reserve pride ourselves on our ability to
    respond to any global crisis within 72 hours. In many cases, including
    our response to the devastation during the hurricane season, we are
    able to respond within 24 hours. We train to the same standards as the
    active duty for a reason. We are one Air Force in the same fight. With
    a single level of readiness, we are able to seamlessly operate side-by-
    side with the Regular Air Force and Air National Guard in the full
    spectrum of combat operations. As an equal partner in day-to-day combat
    operations, it is critical we remain ready, resourced and relevant.
    New Mission Areas
        The Air Force Reserve will continue to transform into a full
    spectrum force for the 21st Century by integrating across all roles and
    missions throughout the Air, Space and Cyberspace domains. Our roles
    and missions are mirror images of the Regular Component. Bringing Air
    Force front line weapon systems to the Reserve allows force unification
    at both the strategic and tactical levels. Indeed, we are a unified,
    total force.
        Sharing the tip of the spear, our focus is on maximizing warfighter
    effects by taking on new and emerging missions that are consistent with
    Reserve participation. Reachback capabilities enable Reserve forces to
    train for and execute operational missions supporting the Combatant
    Commander from home station. In many cases, this eliminates the need
    for deployments. The Associate Unit construct will see growth in
    emerging operational missions such as: Unmanned Aerial Systems, Space
    and Information Operations, Air Operations Centers, Battlefield Airmen
    and Contingency Response Groups. The Active/Air Reserve Components mix
    must keep pace with emerging missions to allow the Air Force to
    continue operating seamlessly as a Total Force. This concurrent
    development will provide greater efficiency in peacetime and increased
    capability in wartime.
    Transforming and Modernizing the AFR
        Equipment modernization is our lifeline to readiness. As the Air
    Force transitions to a capabilities-based force structure, the
    combination of aging and heavily used equipment requires across-the-
    board recapitalization. The United States military has become
    increasingly dependent on the Reserve to conduct operational and
    support missions around the globe. Effective modernization of Reserve
    assets is vital to remaining a relevant and capable combat ready force.
    While the Air Force recognizes this fact and has made significant
    improvement in modernizing and equipping the Reserve, the reality of
    fiscal constraints still results in shortfalls in our modernization and
    equipage Funding our modernization enhances availability, reliability,
    maintainability, and sustainability of aircraft weapon systems;
    strengthening our ability to ensure the success of our warfighting
    commanders and laying the foundation for tomorrow's readiness.

                             FISCAL YEAR 2006 NGREA

        The National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) resolves
    some of these AFR equipment deficiencies. We appreciate the support
    provided in the 2006 NGREA. The money you provide is making a
    difference; increasing the capability and safety of our airmen, and the
    security of our Nation. The fact is AFR NGREA procurement strategy
    fulfills shortfall equipment requirements. The items we purchase with
    NGREA are prioritized from the airmen in the field up to the Air Force
    Reserve Command Headquarters and vetted through the Air Staff. The
    cornerstone is innovation and the foundation is capabilities-based and
    has been for many years. In fiscal year 2006 the Air Force Reserve is
    spending $30 million on critical aircraft modernization and
    miscellaneous equipment to help fulfill our Nation's air, space, and
    cyberspace peacetime and wartime requirements. These items run the
    gamut from multi-function aircraft displays, security forces night
    vision devices, defensive systems, aircraft radar upgrades and enhanced
    strike capabilities.
        The Air Force Reserve is spending $3.21 million on modernizing the
    A-10 aircraft Litening AT POD interface. Use of a Multi-Function Color
    Display (MFCD) provides additional capability, including data link
    integration, machine-to-machine image transfer, moving map, cursor-on-
    target and ARC-210 integration. We are also completing our buy of 23
    additional Situational Awareness Data Link radios for the A-10 at a
    cost of $920,000. We are continuing our support for the radar test
    stand modification and the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS)
    with $1.3 million. We continue to purchase Litening AT Pods; this year
    we have added $9.688 million of NGREA to the conference line item
    appropriation of $12.4 million for a total of $22.088 million. This 15-
    pod procurement completes the current total validated command pod
    requirement. Additionally this procures spares, support equipment and
    required warranties.
        Upgrading the C-130 fleet with all-weather color radar has been an
    Air Force Reserve priority for the last several years. This year we
    continue our dedication to the program by adding $4.75 million to the
    conference appropriated $7.5 million for a total of $12.25 million to
    purchase 14 radars. This means 60 percent of the Air Force Reserve C-
    130 fleet will have the APN-241 radar. We are also spending $1.8
    million to begin installing the capability for both C-130 pilots to
    dispense chaff and flares to enhance survivability in a combat
    environment. Previously, aircrews had to rely on crew positions other
    than the pilots to react to threats. Adding this capability doubles the
    number of crewmembers who can effectively counter threats in a timely
    manner.
        The Air Force Reserve also has a need for Defensive Systems
    testers, specifically, an end-to-end ground-based tester for the AAR-47
    missile detection system and an ALE-47 IR countermeasures dispensing
    system. The desired capability will allow testing of the complete
    system while it is in normal operation mode by transmitting
    independent, external signals to the AAR-47, rather than using built in
    testing routines that are not comprehensive.
        On our B-52's we are installing Smart Multi-Function Color Display
    and Digital/Analog Integrated Track Handle which will provide the most
    cost effective solution to resolve a critical shortage with B-52
    Targeting Pod controllers. Along those same lines we are also
    installing a Multi-Function Color Display to enhance our search and
    rescue capabilities on the HH-60 helicopter. The combat rescue mission
    requires increased computer processing capability and color displays to
    enhance target identification and moving map capability.
        Night vision operations continue to be at the forefront in the Air
    Force Reserve. We rely on our Security Forces in all aspects of the
    battle and depend on our Pararescue personnel, PJs, for personnel
    recovery. To that end we are spending $330,000 to outfit our Security
    Forces personnel with night vision devices and laser sights. Since our
    PJs have long operated with outdated night vision goggles, $2.1 million
    is being spent this year to upgrade the PJs capabilities, both in the
    air and on the ground via acquisition of advanced night vision devices.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2007 FUNDING

        The President's Budget as forwarded to Congress is vital to our
    relevance and participation in the long war. It is balanced and what we
    need to remain relevant in the future and fulfill the immediate needs
    of the Combatant Commander.
        We support the President's Budget decision to retire our aging
    equipment. Divesting force structure is an essential piece in enabling
    the Air Force Reserve to recapitalize our fleet, modernize our force
    and increase associations. Depot maintenance costs affect us across the
    board--training, readiness and operations, sapping resources and
    preventing us from transforming to the force we need. We simply can't
    afford to defer these retirements any longer. In an age of competing
    priorities and scarce resources, accepting retirement of our oldest
    legacy aircraft will reduce depot maintenance costs and free resources
    to properly shape the force and increase combat capability to the
    warfighter.

                                 RECONSTITUTION

        With a much higher operations tempo over the past 4 years, our
    equipment is aging and wearing out at much higher than projected rates.
    Reconstitution is a planning process with the purpose of restoring
    ``units back to their full combat capability in a short period of
    time.'' The Long War is having a significant and long-term impact on
    the readiness of our Air Force Reserve units to train personnel and
    conduct missions. The goal must be to bring our people and equipment
    back up to full warfighting capability.
        The rotational nature of our units precludes shipping equipment and
    vehicles back and forth due to cost and time constraints, therefore,
    equipment is left in the AOR to allow quick transition of personnel and
    mission effectiveness. However, the additional impacts are potential
    AFR equipment disconnects and decreased readiness. The number one
    contributing factor to poor readiness is equipment shortfalls. After
    September 11, 2001 and during Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
    Freedom, units returning back to CONUS returned without the same level
    of equipment as when they deployed. While leaving equipment and
    vehicles in the AOR supports rotations and mission requirements, it has
    a negative impact on readiness for the Total Force.
        To preclude mission degradation, reconstitution plays a vitally
    important role for the returning unit. Air Force Reserve Command,
    working with the Air Staff, has put together a Memorandum of Agreement
    to replace approximately $2.2 million of the $5.4 million in GWOT
    equipment that is unavailable due to being transferred, withdrawn, or
    diverted in support of OIF/OEF. Equipment left behind includes
    generators, test sets, fork lifts, cargo trucks, HMMWVs, M-16 rifles,
    9MM pistols, night vision scopes, laptops, body armor, etc.
    Reconstituting our equipment is critical for our airmen to train,
    perform their mission and maintain readiness.

                                    CLOSING

        I would like to close by offering my sincere thanks to each Member
    of this committee for their continued support and interest in the men
    and women of your Air Force Reserve. Thank you for keeping the National
    Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) alive and vibrant. Money
    contributed by your committee through NGREA, has been essential to
    keeping the Reserve relevant to the fight and at the leading edge of
    employed technology in the field. While we maintain our heritage of
    providing a strategic reserve capability, today and into the future, we
    are your operational warfighting Reserve, bringing a lethal, agile,
    combat hardened and ready force to the Combatant Commander in the daily
    execution of the long war. Our vision is to provide the world's best
    mutual support to the Air Force and our joint partners. We gratefully
    appreciate your continued support in helping us defend this Nation in
    our role as an Unrivaled Wingman.

        Senator Stevens. Let me do this, and we do appreciate the
    brevity that you have all expressed. The time is a problem this
    morning because of the votes that are coming. But we do have
    real concerns about the Reserve. We have currently, as I
    understand it, 109,000 of the Guard and Reserve are on active
    duty now, I am informed. And the Guard and Reserve comprise
    more than 81 percent of the total of the mobilized Guard and
    reservists. There are more than 40,000 of your people on active
    duty now in the Army and 5,300 marines and the Navy has more
    than 500 soldiers as I understand, plus 1,500 Reserve sailors
    that provide support for the fleet, and the Air Force Reserve
    flew 20,000 sorties in the last fiscal year alone.
        Now, that is an increasing tempo that we really have got to
    learn more about and what it means in terms of costs and the
    impact on your structure. This operational tempo really brings
    about the question of readiness. We would like to have you each
    describe what you are doing to change your processes so that it
    takes into account this readiness requirement now that is
    involved in the Reserve.
        Ms. Ashworth tells me that we have people in uniform now in
    146 different countries of the world. As you listen to the
    daily news, we all know this is a continuing struggle now
    against terrorism that is going to go on. Are we going to see
    any reformation in the Reserve structures in each one of your
    services now to take into account this? How are you going to
    prepare people for the fact that they are going to be the next
    to be called up in the Reserve, and how are we going to deal
    with them when they come out of the Reserve and go back into
    their daily lives?
        Will there be a guarantee, as mentioned here by Senator
    Leahy, of how long before you can be recalled up, except for a
    real world calamity? I think we would like to have you tell us
    if there is anything we can do to help you in terms of these
    changes, or at least reviews that have to be made to see what
    changes should be made.
        General Helmly.
        General Helmly. Senator, I will lead off and I will be
    brief to leave adequate time for my peers. First of all, I
    would point to this chart which you see in front of you, which
    is called and addresses the issue of readiness. Regardless of
    the size of the force, in the past, on the left--and I will
    point to it here--we have had a force structure----
        Senator Stevens. This is the Army alone, right?
        General Helmly. This is the Army Reserve, yes, sir.
        We have had a force structure allowance above our end
    strength. That force structure allowance is the cumulative
    number of people that it would take to fill if we filled all of
    our units, regardless of where they are, to 100 percent. So we
    overstructured the force. That was an industrial age model for
    a strategic reserve that we planned to fill over time from the
    Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) or from new recruits.
        What we are doing to address that, frankly, is very painful
    and what it in some people's minds is counterintuitive, because
    we are inactivating units in the midst of a war. But the units
    that we are inactivating are nondeploying formations, first.
    They are headquarters formations, they are garrison support
    units, they are units that were not structured or built to
    deploy.
        So our intent, on the right, is to over the program
    objective management (POM) years lower our structure allowance
    to about 180,000 soldiers, using about 10 percent of our end
    strength to man a trainees, transient, holdies and student
    (TTHS) account. That is where we account for soldiers who are
    in the training base or who are otherwise unready for temporary
    periods of time, profiles, going through board actions, et
    cetera. Then we have already implemented a delayed entry
    program, a 21st century modern manpower tool used by the
    regular Army, that accounts for recruits who have not yet
    shipped to basic training.
        So that is how we are addressing the readiness issue. The
    second point I will address is the rotational. I would avoid
    the word ``certainty.'' Certainly I know you will agree there
    is no certainty in a very dangerous, uncertain world today.
    That is why this readiness challenge is so important, because
    none of us can predict when our forces will be required with
    certainty.
        But we are now implementing in the Army, and I am proud to
    say we in the Army Reserve pioneered, an Army Reserve
    expeditionary force, which has now morphed into the Army force
    generation model. Frankly, we went to school on how Navy and
    marine forces, both Reserve and Active, had operated in the
    past and the Air Force, Air Reserve air expeditionary force
    model. In fact, we visited Air Force Reserve Command
    headquarters, General Bradley's headquarters, and asked their
    staff--they were very cooperative--to explain to us how they
    managed that in the Air Force Reserve.
        So we are implementing that in rotational force pools, not
    to provide certainty, but to provide greater predictability
    over a 5-year pool period when my force is more apt to be
    called, when I am expected to be in a higher state of
    readiness, if you will.
        I would add one last thing. These measures are in my
    professional judgment very necessary. We must change ourselves
    from within to meet the demands of this century. But similarly,
    it is my judgment that the policies, practices, and procedures
    by which we are governed, that relate to personnel management,
    recruiting, retention, training, mobilization, and in fact
    funding, are in similar need of deep change.
        Thank you very much for your time.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye, do you have any comments
    along that line?
        Senator Inouye. According to the most recent QDR, a policy
    decision was made that the Pacific area may be the area of
    concern, much greater than the Atlantic area. As such, for
    example, they are going to have five carriers in the Pacific
    and five in the Atlantic. It used to be six in the Atlantic and
    four in the Pacific.
        With that in mind, why did the Quadrennial Defense Review
    come out and transform your Army Reserve 9th Regional Readiness
    Command to the 9th Regional Support Group, downgraded it,
    reduced the strength? Do you not think it would have an impact
    upon command and control in the Pacific area?
        General Helmly. Senator, we do not intend to reduce our
    Army Reserve strength numbers in the Pacific region. We will
    change the headquarters of the 9th Regional Readiness Command,
    that is accurate, to a Regional Support Group. We will retain
    there a brigadier general. We are moving the 311th Signal
    Command, Network Operations Command, a two-star command, over
    time from CONUS to Hawaii. It will be the daily, 24/7/365
    network operations for Army and joint forces in the Pacific,
    the combatant commander.
        In addition, as the Army establishes a regular Army-
    commanded 8th Theater Sustainment Command headquartered in
    Hawaii to provide logistics support throughout the region, the
    deputy commander of that organization will be an Army Reserve
    brigadier general.
        Our forces in the Pacific have sustained us very well,
    valiantly. The most recent example is the 1442d ``Go for
    Broke'' Battalion, but throughout that region from Hawaii and
    the territories in the Pacific we have recruited very well. The
    soldiers and their families are courageous, strong. We have no
    intention of reducing whatsoever our strength. We are simply
    restructuring to make the headquarters of the 9th Reserve
    Readiness Command (RRC) a deployable formation.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. It is reassuring.

                                   EQUIPMENT

        General Bergman, there is a tremendous amount of wear and
    tear, we have been told, on Army equipment, and I presume it
    must be the same with yours. How do you feel that this will
    impact upon readiness of your units?
        General Bergman. Well, sir, the increased use of the
    equipment is by no means a secret to anyone. The cyclic rate is
    in some cases 5 to 10 times what it was programmed for original
    usage. Across the total force Marine Corps, we have cross-
    leveled through a strategic ground equipment working group all
    of those equipment pieces that are in, whether they be in the
    prepositioned force, the caves, Albany storage, wherever it
    happens to be, and actually over the last year increased the
    supply readiness by about 5 percent.
        However, at the same time, because of that increased cyclic
    rate usage, we see that we will continue to need more equipment
    just in the Reserve component to maintain the 80 percent
    training allowance that we use.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Senator Inouye. I have been told that the Marine Reserves
    have longer deployment to the Middle East than other units. If
    that is so, how does it affect recruiting and retention?
        General Bergman. Well, sir, if you will, the Marine Corps
    business model for rotations, whether it is Active or Reserve,
    is basically a 6- to 7-month rotation, whether it be deployed
    as part of a marine expeditionary unit or deployed to Iraq or
    Afghanistan. With that model applied across the total force, it
    has allowed us to plan for activation, let us say, of
    battalions, reserve battalions, that within a 1-year business
    activation, 1-year business model activation, ample
    predeployment training, 7-month deployment, and ample time for
    demobilization.
        Retention is above normal about 3 percent. So I guess what
    that says in the long term is that the people are voting with
    their feet and they are staying. So it is a good news story.
    Recruiting, we are right on track to make our 39,600 for this
    year, sir.
        Senator Inouye. General Bradley, many of your units were
    realigned by BRAC and as a result many of your personnel would
    have to make up their minds, do they travel long distances or
    quit. How are you addressing this problem?
        General Bradley. Sir, what we are doing is we are working
    very hard to try to place every single person who wants to stay
    with us in a new unit. That will not work for everyone. Not
    everyone can pick up and move their families. As you know, we
    are not allowed to pay for moves of reservists or guardsmen
    when their base or unit is closed.
        There is a huge amount of realignment going on. We are
    affecting about 13,000 people. We have a lot of innovative
    programs that we are using to assist them in finding jobs. We
    want to keep them in the Air Force Reserve if we can. If we can
    assist them in getting in the Air National Guard or the Marine
    Corps Reserve or the Army Reserve, we will do that as well,
    because we want them to continue serving our Nation if
    possible.
        We also, though, would ask for and have been working on
    Capitol Hill to try to get authorities that we had in the 1990s
    during the base closure rounds for Reserve transition
    assistance programs for those people who have served our Nation
    for 15 years or more, to allow them to have some reduced type
    of retirement. And they would receive that retirement pay at
    age 60, but it would be reduced from what someone who had a 20-
    or 25-year retirement would be. The Reserve transition
    assistance program has been pretty well received by the members
    with whom we have talked.
        We are trying hard to keep those people in our units. We
    are getting more efficient through this base closure process.
    It up-ends lives, but ultimately we will save a lot of money by
    having the right numbers of airplanes on our bases and the
    right numbers of bases.

                                   RECRUITING

        Senator Inouye. Admiral Cotton, I gather that the Navy,
    like all other components, must rely on bonuses and incentives
    to address recruiting challenges. How have you carried out this
    program? Because I have been told that you are a little
    different from the rest of them.
        Admiral Cotton. Yes, sir, we are. Two and one-half years
    ago we integrated Navy and Navy Reserve recruiting. We have
    changed expectations of a sailor so that we no longer leave the
    Navy, end an obligation, quit the Navy. You transition to the
    Reserve component once you complete your initial obligation,
    either full-time selected reservist or Individual Ready
    Reserve. So everyone will go to the Reserve component. We will
    keep track of you.
        So this is a continuum of service, a culture of a sailor
    for life, and then transitions or on-ramps and off-ramps
    throughout service back to active duty, according to skill sets
    and capabilities. Age does not really matter right now,
    particularly in a global war on terror, with the skill sets
    that we are sending ashore in Central Command in particular.
        One thing I would like to ask your consideration for is I
    personally think the Army Guard has got it. If you look at
    their numbers increasing right now, they have a finder's fee.
    They pay $1,000 for someone to recommend a friend to join and
    another $1,000 when they complete training, and this has proven
    to be extremely effective for the title 32 guardsmen.
        I think we should look at the authority for us to do the
    same thing, where every sailor, every soldier, every airman,
    every marine is also a recruiter. This would give us an ability
    to go out into the community and recruit our friends. I also
    think you can pay for it in the top line by reducing full-time
    recruiters, because every single person in uniform who has ever
    served could turn into a recruiter.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Senator Inouye. I know that recruiting and retention go up
    and down, but one thing seems certain, that the present
    situation in the world is not going to be changing drastically
    in the next 10 years. We will be at war, at least for the next
    decade. What are the best methods of recruiting and retaining?
    Are we doing the right thing?
        General Helmly. Senator, in my own judgment, I believe
    Admiral Cotton's point to the National Guard's success in the
    way that it has been done. The Army received an authorization
    to use $1,000 bonus in the 2006 authorization act, but the
    language which went with it reduces our flexibility. It is my
    judgment we are proposing that we be allowed to expand the pool
    so that retirees could also, by virtue of referring someone--
    that is a tremendous tool of very talented, rich people out
    there--and then similarly when you referred someone you would
    get the $1,000 bonus, similar to the National Guard, for the
    referral, not the way we have tied it today, which is to my
    completion of initial military training.
        The second part I will note is that I agree completely with
    the Navy's move toward a continuum of service. I have proposed
    to the Army that we abolish the word ``discharge,'' that we do
    away with that, that one is not discharged until one has
    completed their mandatory service obligation.
        Third, I place a premium on retention. In our case, in
    business terms, it costs us an average of $117,000 burden of
    cost to recruit an 18- to 22-year-old man or woman off the
    street, and out of that certainly there is an attrition rate
    that accrues as you go through physicals and initial military
    training.
        The retained soldier is experienced, they are mature. That
    is the kind of skill set we need in today's armed forces, a
    more mature, a more language, culturally aware soldier, a more
    technically competent soldier. Thus I believe that we should
    look harder at retention bonuses for longer periods of time.
        Last, that is why I have favored in the past for Reserve
    component members and continue to favor an age 55 receipt of
    nonregular retired pay, but tying that to the completion of 30
    years service, not 20 years service. It is my judgment that if
    we costed that out we would see in fact a possible savings,
    rather than what everyone expects, which is a huge bill. That
    is because I favor tying it to the completion of 30 years
    service, to keep people longer, and then draw retired pay at
    age 55, as opposed to encourage them to leave at 20 and then
    wait until age 60 to draw it.
        That is my answer.
        Admiral Cotton. Senator, I would agree with you, we are
    increasingly challenged to recruit, particularly because we are
    resistant to change the way we do it. We still go to the 18-
    and 19-year-old high school graduate. If you look at a major
    publication last week, the cover of the magazine talked about
    30 percent dropouts in our high schools. We have done research
    to determine that 70 percent of our Nation's youth today is
    ineligible for military service. So we are all going after the
    same 30 percent segment, trying to bring them in the front
    door, and I think ignoring at our own peril those that have
    served before, particularly individual ready reserve.
        If we went after them, bonused their behavior, treasured
    them for a whole career, with an on-ramp back to service, I
    think we could go after the skill sets in a better way than we
    are doing right now.
        Senator Inouye. General Bergman.
        General Bergman. Sir, up until about 4 years ago the
    average number of hours that a marine recruiter spent with a
    potential new marine was about 4 hours. Over the past 4 years,
    that has increased to about 12 hours of recruiting time,
    largely due to the expanded hours spent with the influencers--
    parents, coaches, uncles, aunts, et cetera.
        The best thing that we can do when we look these young men
    and women in the eye or their influencers in the eye is to be
    honest about what it really means to go into the military, the
    challenges that await them, but back that honesty up with the
    absolute best training and preparation possible to prepare them
    to succeed, because deep down we all want to succeed and can be
    successful somewhere. We just need to have the confidence that
    our institution provides that preparation.
        Senator Inouye. General.
        General Bradley. Senator, I agree with what all of my
    colleagues have said. I will tell you, the people that we are
    recruiting today are better than those that we recruited when I
    joined the Air Force many, many years ago. I have seen a great
    qualitative improvement in our force, and I think one of the
    reasons is in our Air Force we have given our Air Force
    reservists and our Air National guardsmen real day to day
    operational missions. The morale is better, our retention is
    better than it used to be in the 1970s and 1980s. It is a great
    improvement.
        Now, we are using our people at a great rate. We are going
    to keep doing that because, as you say, this war will go on for
    a long time. But our retention is better than it has ever been,
    and I am proud of that. What our people tell us is they are
    proud to be part of our units, they like doing real work for
    America, and they believe it is very important work.
        The incentives and bonuses and authorities that the
    Congress has provided us over the last few years has helped us
    immensely. But I think, as General Bergman says, we have to
    look every one of these new people we are recruiting in the eye
    and tell them exactly what they are getting into.
        They are continuing to join us. We are not having any
    trouble in the Air Force Reserve recruiting people, and I would
    not equate our recruiting challenges with the Army or the
    Marine Corps. I think they have a tougher job. But we are
    working hard at it. We get good recruits because we have good
    programs to incentivize people to join. But once they get in,
    they are proud to be part of it and they think they are
    contributing something important and they are. I think that
    keeps them.
        Thank you, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                              EQUIPMENT SHORTFALLS

        Senator Stevens. Gentlemen, we provided $30 million to each
    of you to address ongoing equipment shortfalls. Could each of
    you tell us, have you gotten that money and have you used it
    well? General Helmly.
        General Helmly. Senator, we have.
        Senator Stevens. It has been released to you, right?
        General Helmly. Yes, sir, that is correct.
        Senator Stevens. Do you see a need for further money now?
        General Helmly. Senator, certainly there is a need for
    money. I sort of echo the comments of my colleague General Blum
    on the first panel that the Army's equipping challenges are
    deep. Army equipment is purchased by Army dollars and we input
    to that. The Army POM addresses that. I would urge this
    subcommittee and its colleagues in the other subcommittee to
    sustain the requested level of funding in the Army POM and
    equipping. The Army equipping--and we have addressed that for
    the Army and its colleagues in the Marine Corps. We are wearing
    that heart.
        Senator Stevens. Well, we specifically gave you, General
    Helmly, the $100 million for title 9 in the 2006 act. Did you
    receive that money?
        General Helmly. Yes, sir, we did.
        Senator Stevens. And is it committed?
        General Helmly. Sir, I cannot say that we have committed it
    in financial management terms today. I owe you an answer on
    that. There is a ``committed'' and an ``obligation'' terms that
    have a formal definition.
        [The information follows:]

        The Army Reserve has obligated or committed the $150.3
    million of Title IX funding received from Congress.
        The Army Reserve received $138.8 million in Title IX for
    the Reserve Personnel, Army appropriation. As of April 26, we
    have obligated $68.8 million, and we have also committed $33.5
    million. These funds are being used to recruit, retain and
    train soldiers in support of the global war on terror. The
    remaining funds will be used for pre-mobilization training for
    units deploying in the third and fourth quarter.
        The Army Reserve received $48.2 million in Title IX for the
    Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve appropriation. As of
    April 26, we have committed and obligated over $48 million in
    support of the global war on terror. This funding was used for
    family support, recruiting and advertising, and medical
    readiness.
        The Army Reserve greatly appreciates the support of
    Congress, and we are using these resources in the most
    efficient manner to execute GWOT.

        Senator Stevens. Admiral Cotton.
        Admiral Cotton. Yes, sir, we received the $30 million. It
    was most appreciated. Thank you for your support, and we are
    taking the taxpayer dollar and giving it straight to where it
    can do the most good for the global war on terror and that is
    to the units. We are using most in theater combat service
    support. So we are using the money very well.
        I can also say that the Navy Reserve is a full participant
    in all Navy supplementals. So throughout the year our needs are
    looked at by the Navy for funding.
        Senator Stevens. General Bergman, did you get your money?
        General Bergman. Yes, sir, we did get our money, and we
    have put it right where the rubber meets the road, with those
    marines and the equipment, especially in the personal
    protective equipment. When you think about people as we look at
    manning, literally dressing a marine for combat, we think about
    kevlar, we think about small arms protective inserts (SAPI)
    plates. Now we are adding everything from Nomex gloves to
    Wiley-X glasses to balaclavas to combat those challenges that
    we have with the explosive fire nature, if you will, of the
    improvised explosive devices. So the need is changing.
        Senator Stevens. General Bradley.
        General Bradley. Yes, sir, we received our $30 million. I
    want to thank you very much. It was much needed. The funds have
    been released and we have spent the funds. We have bought
    targeting pods for our fighter planes and our bombers, A-10's,
    F-16's, and B-52's, so that we can drop laser-guided bombs to
    do close air support for marines and soldiers on the ground in
    Iraq and Afghanistan. We have bought multifunction displays for
    cockpits to improve the capabilities of pilots in those
    airplanes to know what they are looking at for targets, where
    the friendlies are, and where the enemy is. We have bought
    datalink systems for the fighters with this funding this year,
    to improve our A-10's close air support capability, so that
    they can talk without using voice radios, datalink information
    between a forward air controller on the ground and a fighter
    pilot in a cockpit. These datalink systems are critical to
    providing quick close air support in that very important
    environment.
        So all of the funding that you have given us has gone to
    combat capability for our airplanes, mostly to support those
    soldiers and marines on the ground. Thank you very much for the
    continued support, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        We have got the supplemental on the floor now and it has a
    sizable amount for defense. Some of it is allocated to each of
    your organizations, I believe. We will be going into the
    regular bill for 2007 and we hope you will let us know if there
    are any special needs that you have, because I think we are in
    a period of transition. There is no question about this. This
    current war on terror is an ongoing war, a global war. I think
    soon they will call it the world war on terror. I hope people
    understand it is a world war.
        But we have got to react to your needs and make certain
    that you have the capability to bring your people into these
    engagements and have them be well equipped. It particularly is
    the equipment need that we tried to address last year, and we
    would like to work with you to make sure we address this year.
        General Bradley. Thank you, sir, for that offer. I will
    tell you, we have provided Ms. Farrell with our list of things
    that we could use equipment wise for the coming year. So thank
    you for your offer.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye, do you have any further
    comment?
        Senator Inouye. I want to thank you all for your service.
        Senator Stevens. Yes. We are particularly concerned that on
    our watch this transition is taking place and we do not want it
    to lag. We want to be sure that we stay with you and we are
    able to assist you to make the transition as smooth as
    possible.
        Senator Inouye. As you can note, our support is bipartisan.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Stevens. One or the other of us has been chairman
    now since 1981 and I cannot remember a partisan word between
    us.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                 Question Submitted to General Jack W. Bergman
                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                             ACTIVATION TIME LIMITS

        Question. General Bergman, as I understand it, you have efficiently
    managed the Reserve Marines' activation time limit in the face of
    growing demands in support of the Global War on Terrorism. Can you
    please explain how you've minimized the impact of increased activations
    and your thoughts on the way ahead.
        Answer. Post 9/11, Marine Forces Reserve planned to minimize the
    impact of increased activations by activating units for 12 months
    (seven months actual ``boots on the ground'' and five months for
    mobilization, advanced training and demobilization) followed by a set
    period of dwell time, followed by a second 12 month activation cycle if
    required. This plan provided our Marines and Sailors with a predictable
    activation cycle for which they could plan with less time away from
    their civilian jobs for any given activation cycle while still
    maximizing the 24 months of cumulative activation time available under
    the current mobilization authority. This plan was instituted assuming
    every available Marine or unit could be activated a full 24 cumulative
    months in support of the Global War on Terrorism.
        Because current policy does not allow us to involuntarily activate
    Marines for the second 12 month cycle described above, Marine Forces
    Reserve has had to meet requirements in support of the Global War on
    Terrorism through the one-time activation of Selected Marine Corps
    Reservists and the Individual Ready Reserve pool of Marines. As our
    units continue to be replenished with first-term junior Marines who are
    ready, willing, and able to support the Global War on Terrorism, we
    have been able to use that new pool of first time activation personnel
    and cross level seasoned Marine volunteers from one unit to another to
    meet mobilization demands. Ideally, we would like to be able to
    involuntarily activate our Marines for the second 12 month cycle as was
    originally planned which would reduce our dependency on cross leveling
    from one unit to another and thereby enhance unit cohesion. This would
    also address the leadership issue we currently face. The inability to
    involuntarily re-activate previously activated Marines or extend
    Individual Ready Reservists on Active duty under 10 U.S.C. 12302 and
    utilize the full 24 cumulative months of activation authority as
    granted, has created somewhat of a deployable leadership vacuum in
    Marine Forces Reserve. Marine Forces Reserve does not currently have a
    large cadre of leaders who have not been activated at least once. As a
    result Marine Forces Reserve has aggressively implemented sourcing
    solutions that require the solicitation of volunteers from throughout
    Marine Forces Reserve. In addition, we have gone to the active
    component (to staff Company Grade Officer billets) to staff deploying
    units to 90 percent of their Table of Organization. The fact that the
    Active Component continues to come to Marine Forces Reserve to provide
    sourcing solutions for their shortfalls should be a compelling argument
    in itself for reconsidering the current policy. Without the ability to
    extend Ready Reservists on Active Duty under 10 U.S.C. 12302, or
    involuntarily activate them for a second 12 month cycle, Marine Forces
    Reserve will continue to face the challenge of sourcing deploying units
    through first-time activation and voluntary re-activation. This policy
    increases our dependence on cross leveling between units. We feel that
    the current policy provides a short term solution to sourcing the next
    force rotation but does not allow Marine Forces Reserve to set the
    conditions to reconstitute the Force for the long war in support of
    GWOT.
                                     ______

            Question Submitted to Lieutenant General John A. Bradley
                Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                              PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS

        Question. General Bradley, the Air Force Chief of Staff recently
    announced that the Air Force Reserve and Air Guard should consider
    force reductions. Specifically, he cited the elimination of some layers
    of command and staffing similar to what the Active Air Force is doing.
    Taking into account that the cost to run an Air Force Reserve or Air
    Guard unit is one-half to one-third of the cost to run an Active Duty
    unit, do you believe that the Reserves need to take this type of
    personnel reduction?
        And if so, how large of a personnel cut do you foresee?
        Answer. As our part in the recapitalization and modernization of
    the Air Force, the Air Force Reserve has already planned to take the
    manpower reduction you refer to in your question. Our Citizen Airmen do
    indeed offer cost-effective combat power to the American taxpayer
    through the use of our predominantly part-time force. Perhaps more
    important than cutting and becoming more cost effective, we have worked
    with the Active Component to divest a significant number of legacy
    mission areas and re-role those manpower authorizations to the current
    priority missions that will help us remain relevant as both an
    operational and strategic reserve as we fight the Global War on
    Terrorism. While there will be some elimination of layers of command as
    General Moseley stated, our overall reduction plan is even more
    comprehensive.
        For example, in shifting strategy we will invest less in Individual
    Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs) as a strategic reserve and devote more
    resource to the operational reserve or traditional reservists. This
    means we will re-role many IMAs to the Individual Ready Reserve.
    Additionally, our Air Force Reserve Component Surgeon General is
    coordinating with the Air Force Surgeon General to refocus the Air
    Force Reserve on our core specialty of Aeromedical Evacuation as
    opposed to expeditionary medical support, leaving this mission to the
    Active Component. This will then allow the Air Force Reserve to take
    reductions across units that would provide the expeditionary medical
    mission.
        We will continue to work in concert with the Regular Air Force to
    exploit process and organizational efficiencies through Air Force Smart
    Operations 21. This will also allow us to restructure headquarters
    organizations, which have a larger proportion of full-time personnel
    than operational units. We will provide deployable support to the
    combatant commanders while still handling their ``organize, train and
    equip'' roles. This is an important step in designing a smaller, more
    capable Air Force.
        Acting as partners with the Active Component in this effort will
    allow our command structures to seamlessly work together, in both peace
    and war, and ensure the resources of the Total Force are utilized to
    preserve critically needed skills. The size of the cut we are taking as
    an Air Force Reserve is 7,744 positions or about 10.5 percent of
    today's end-strength.
                                     ______

            Question Submitted to Lieutenant General James R. Helmly
                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                            MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES

        Question. Can you explain to the committee how the Reserves will
    transform to modular support brigades?
        Answer. At the completion of the Army's transformation in 2009, the
    Army Reserve will have 58 deployable combat support and combat service
    support brigades. This restructuring will transition the Army Reserve
    to a Joint and federal modular force capable of providing increased
    combat power to complement the active component with skill rich units
    and Soldiers. The Army Reserve, with its unique Title 10 mission, has
    the maximum of flexibility, agility, and adaptability to meet
    transformational requirements.
        For the first time, all of the Army Reserve operational, deployable
    forces will be commanded by an operational, deployable command
    headquarters. The transformation enhances the ability of the Army
    Reserve to provide the capabilities and units that demand technical
    skills more easily maintained at acceptable cost in the Army Reserve
    than in active military service.
        Some of the modular support brigades are currently within the Army
    Reserve. The Army Reserve will transform other existing commands to the
    modular support brigades according to the schedule outlined below:
      --Expeditionary Sustainment Commands--September 2007
      --Combat Support Brigades (Maneuver Enhancement)--September 2008
      --Sustainment Brigades--September 2008
      --Military Police Command--September 2007
      --Regional Readiness Sustainment Commands--September 2008
      --Aviation Command--September 2008
        The result of the reshaping of the Army Reserve forces will be a
    more streamlined command and control structure and will provide an
    increase in ready, deployable assets to support the Global War on
    Terror. The goal for this larger pool of available forces is to enable
    the Army to generate forces in a rotational manner.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Stevens. We thank you for your testimony today and
    we look forward to another hearing on May 3, when we will hear
    testimony on military health programs. Until then, we will
    stand in recess. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
        [Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., Wednesday, April 26, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    May 3.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senator Stevens, Inouye, and Mikulski.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                            Medical Health Programs

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL KEVIN C. KILEY, M.D.,
                SURGEON GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much for your appearance.
        We want to welcome you to this hearing as we seek to review
    the Department of Defense medical programs. There are two
    panels scheduled today. First we will hear from the surgeon
    generals, followed by the chiefs of the nursing corps. Today,
    joining us from the Army, we have Lieutenant General Kevin
    Kiley, Vice Admiral Donald Arthur, from the Navy, and
    Lieutenant General Peach Taylor, representing the Air Force.
    It's nice to have you all back with us again.
        The President's fiscal year 2007 request for the defense
    health program is $21 billion, an increase over the fiscal year
    2006 request. The request provides for healthcare for 9.2
    million beneficiaries and for the maintenance and operation of
    70 inpatient facilities and 1,085 clinics.
        Our subcommittee recognizes that the continuing efforts
    overseas in support of the global war on terror and the
    national disaster relief, along with rising costs for
    prescription drugs and related medical costs, will continue to
    strain the financial resources that are contained in the
    request of this year's budget, will place an increased demand
    on our medical service providers, both here and those deployed
    in combat. The subcommittee also understands that the
    Department of Defense request to implement several initiatives
    to help mitigate this growing cost are here before us, and we
    plan to work with the Department to find the best means
    possible to medicate this rapid growth in regard to the
    financial burdens that you face.
        Senator Inouye and I are personally familiar with the value
    of military medicine. We're committed to working with you to
    address the many challenges you face. We certainly applaud your
    efforts, military medical people and the nurses that are
    deployed in harm's way. These men and women in uniform risk
    their lives in support of our Nation in the global war on
    terror, and also here at home, through the devastations such as
    Hurricane Katrina. They support the warfighter and this country
    in all aspects of the fight, and we certainly commend them for
    their leadership, compassion, and bravery.
        I'm pleased to yield to my co-chairman.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    want to join you in welcoming our witnesses. They're all
    veterans here, and it's always reassuring to have them back.
        Our military healthcare system has been transforming in a
    wide array of areas during the past few years. These changes
    not only affect the military treatment facilities and private-
    sector care, but extend to the battlefield, as well. And we
    have seen considerable growth in the benefits provided to our
    servicemembers and their families. At the same time, the
    private sector and the military treatment facilities are
    altering their management practices and patient resources due
    to new TRICARE contracts. We continue to see high patient
    volume, which requires seamless coordination between in-theater
    treatment, military treatment facilities, private-sector care,
    family support and counseling. And let's not forget the
    Veterans Administration.
        Continued improvement in battlefield protection and combat
    casualty care have enabled us to save thousands of lives.
        We're also transforming our approach to treatment at home.
    The direction of care is changing from focusing on individual
    servicemembers to focusing on the individual and his or her
    family from the moment orders are received to the time
    treatment is no longer needed. While we are engaged in this
    transformation, the Department has also initiated budget cuts
    and personnel changes that could have longstanding implications
    in our ability to care for our servicemembers and their
    families. These changes and fiscal constraints are compounded
    by the chronic recruiting and retention challenges faced by
    each service. Shortfalls reside in various specialties, but of
    most concern are those critically important to our
    servicemembers serving in harm's way, and their families, who
    rely upon the quality of homecare.
        We look forward to discussing these and many issues crucial
    to the military medical system.
        Once again, I'd like to thank the chairman for continuing
    to hold these hearings on issues which are so important to our
    military and their families. And I thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Our first witness will be Lieutenant General Kiley. We're
    going to place your full statements in the record as though
    read, and we'd like to hear the comments you wish us to hear.
        General Kiley. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss the current posture of the Army Medical
    Department with you today.
        During combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, we've
    recorded the highest casualty survivability rate in modern
    history. More than 90 percent of those wounded survive, and
    many return to the Army fully fit for continued service. Our
    investments in medical training, equipment, facilities, and
    research, which you have strongly supported, have paid
    tremendous dividends in terms of safeguarding soldiers from the
    medical threats of the modern battlefield, restoring their
    health and functionality to the maximum extent possible, and
    reassuring them that the health of their families is also
    secure. Military medicine is essential to Army readiness and an
    important quality-of-life program.
        On any given day, more than 12,000 Army medics are deployed
    around the world supporting our Army in combat, participating
    in humanitarian assistance missions, and training not only at
    our centers throughout the world, but in Africa, South and
    Central America, and Eastern Europe.
        In the past year, Army medics have cared for more than
    6,000 soldiers evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan, deployed in
    support of gulf coast hurricane relief operations, and deployed
    the Army's last mobile surgical hospital, the 212th, to support
    earthquake relief operations in Pakistan.
        Over the past 3 years, more than half the Army medical,
    dental, and nurse corps officers have deployed at least once to
    Iraq or Afghanistan. Many of our critical wartime specialists
    have deployed multiple times. Every active component field
    hospital and forward surgical team has deployed multiple times.
    Our Reserve components, which comprise more than half the
    Army's medical force structure, have experienced similar
    operational tempo.
        All of this is happening while we transform and reset the
    Army. 2005 base realignment and closure decisions, Army modular
    force decisions, and the integrated global positioning base
    strategy--basing strategy have presented us with a significant
    challenge and a significant opportunity to improve the way we
    care for patients in the battlefield and at our camps, posts,
    and stations around the world. This process is complicated by
    the long lead time necessary to plan and execute military
    construction and by the low thresholds for military
    construction projects.
        In the short term, we continue to maintain high states of
    medical readiness and high service levels to families and
    retirees by increasing internal efficiencies, leveraging
    modular building technology, and relying on TRICARE networks,
    where necessary. Lean Six Sigma techniques are used throughout
    our planning process to develop expeditious, affordable
    solutions that ensure no decline in the accessibility or
    quality of the care provided to Army beneficiaries.
        Much of the healthcare we provide to wounded soldiers is
    funded through supplemental appropriations. The military
    amputee care programs, centered at Walter Reed Army Medical
    Center and Brooke Army Medical Center, has cared for nearly
    4,000--400--excuse me--amputees over the past 3 years. I want
    to thank Congress and the subcommittee for your continued
    support of this program. We're leading the Nation in improving
    amputee care and improving the field of prosthetics technology.
    Working jointly with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the
    civilian industry, we're sharing lessons learned and raising
    the standards of amputee care across our country. Due to your
    support and advances in the care of amputees, many of these
    soldiers will be able to remain on active duty, and many will
    return to combat units fully capable of performing their
    duties.
        Medical research, development, testing, and evaluation are
    critical to our ongoing success both on the battlefield and in
    our hospitals around the country. Over the past year, we've
    pulled 12 medical products out of the research, development,
    test and evaluation (RDT&E) process and fielded them to
    deploying forces because of their demonstrated efficacy and
    safety in improving patient care and force protection on the
    battlefield.
        Despite all of our advances in battlefield medicine,
    hemorrhage continues to be the major cause of death on the
    battlefield, and we continue to develop and test blood
    substitutes and hemostatic agents to mitigate blood loss in our
    combat casualties.
        Today, every soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan deploys with a
    hemostatic bandage and a tourniquet. Evacuation assets quickly
    move casualties from the battlefield to the forward surgical
    teams and combat support hospital within minutes of injury.
    These advances in equipment, training, and doctoring are saving
    lives every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        To support homeland security, Fort Detrick, Maryland, is
    working to become the home of the National Interagency
    Biodefense Campus. This interagency initiative co-locates
    researchers from the Department of Defense, the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of
    Agriculture, Department of Homeland Security, and the National
    Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to achieve
    productive, efficient, interagency cooperation in support of
    our Nation's biodefense.
        Military health benefit has gained critical attention this
    year due to the Department's proposal to initiate control over
    the long-term costs and sustain this important benefit for our
    current and future retirees. This truly outstanding health
    benefit is important for accessions, retentions, and military
    readiness. Each service has taken action over the past few
    years to improve efficiencies and control healthcare costs.
    However, these actions alone will not stem the rising costs in
    the military health benefit.
        I am concerned that delaying action will put even greater
    financial pressure on our hospitals and clinics, when we are
    still trying to care for combat casualties and continue to
    deploy Active and Reserve component soldiers.
        The President's budget request adequately funds the defense
    health program to meet our military medical readiness
    requirements if the sustaining benefits proposals are enacted.
    However, the medical budgets of the three services have little
    flexibility to absorb additional efficiencies to sustain our
    medical readiness mission if no action is taken in this
    important issue.
        In closing, let me emphasize that the service and sacrifice
    of our soldiers and their families cannot be measured with
    dollars and cents. The truth is, we owe far more than we can
    ever pay to those who have been wounded and to those who have
    suffered loss. Thanks to your support, we've been very
    successful in developing a healthcare delivery system that
    honors the commitment of our soldiers, retirees, and their
    families that have been made to our Nation by providing them
    with world-class medical care and peerless military force
    protection.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you, again, for inviting me to participate in the
    discussions today, and I look forward to answering your
    questions.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, General.
        [The statement follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley, M.D.

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the current
    posture of the Army Medical Department and our requirements for fiscal
    year 2007. During the past five years, military medicine has constantly
    exceeded any measure of success we could establish. During combat
    operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have recorded the highest
    casualty survivability rate in modern history. More than 90 percent of
    those wounded survive and many return to the Army fully fit for
    continued service. Our investments in medical training, equipment,
    facilities, and research, which you have strongly supported, have paid
    tremendous dividends in terms of safeguarding Soldiers from the medical
    threats of the modern battlefield, restoring their health and
    functionality to the maximum extent possible, reassuring them that the
    health of their families is also secure. Military medicine is essential
    to Army readiness and an important quality of life program.
        On any given day more than 11,000 Army medics--physicians,
    dentists, veterinarians, nurses, allied health professionals,
    administrators, and combat medics--are deployed around the world
    supporting our Army in combat, participating in humanitarian assistance
    missions, and training not only at our training centers throughout the
    world but in Africa, South and Central America, and Eastern Europe. In
    the past year, Army medics have cared for more than 6,000 Soldiers
    evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan; deployed a combat support
    hospital, a medical logistics company, and several preventive medicine
    and veterinary teams in support of Gulf Coast hurricane relief
    operations; and deployed the Army's 212th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital
    (MASH) to support earthquake relief operations in Pakistan.
        The story of the 212th MASH illustrates the dedication,
    flexibility, and adaptability of Army Medicine. On September 23, 2005,
    the 212th returned to Germany after a 3-week training and humanitarian
    assistance mission in Angola. Within days of the devastating earthquake
    that struck Pakistan on October 8, the 212th MASH was on its way to
    provide surgical and medical care to survivors. When the Pakistani
    mission became apparent, the 212th was the only Department of Defense
    unit that could fill the requirement. It was close to Pakistan, mobile
    enough that it could be put in position quickly, and completely self-
    contained with the capability to house and feed its staff without
    additional assistance from support units or the host nation. The 212th
    returned to Germany in late-February and has begun training with new
    equipment for an upcoming deployment to Iraq.
        It is this dedication, flexibility, and adaptability that has
    allowed us to provide superb medical care for more than 24,000 sick or
    injured Soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan over the past three years.
    Army Medicine is an integrated system of healthcare designed, first and
    foremost, to protect and treat the warfighter. Let me explain how we
    accomplish this and several new initiatives underway to improve how we
    work.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Success begins with recruiting, training, and retaining quality
    healthcare professionals. Fiscal year 2005 presented recruitment
    challenges for healthcare providers. We made 99 percent of our goal for
    Medical Corps recruitment (goal of 419 with 416 achieved) and 84
    percent of our Dental Corps goal (goal of 125 with 105 achieved).
    However, the Army fell short of its goals for awarding Health
    Professions Scholarships in both the Medical Corps (77 percent of
    available scholarships awarded) and Dental Corps (89 percent of
    scholarships awarded). These scholarships are by far the major source
    of accessions for physicians and dentists. This presents a long-term
    recruiting challenge beginning in fiscal year 2009. It is too early to
    tell if this is a one-year anomaly or the beginning of a long-term
    trend, but we are working hard to ensure every available scholarship is
    awarded this year. In conjunction with United States Army Recruiting
    Command (USAREC) we have initiated several new outreach programs to
    improve awareness of these programs and to increase interest in a
    career in Army Medicine. I also ask for your support of legislation
    just submitted by DOD establishing a 2-year pilot program for an
    increased recruitment incentive bonus in up to five critical medical
    specialties. We hope this will attract more interest in our critical
    medical specialties.
        In January I sent letters to the Deans of every U.S. medical
    school, asking for opportunities for Army physicians and Army
    recruiters to meet with medical students and discuss opportunities to
    serve in the Army. Response to date has been strong and positive. We
    will use the same tactic with dental and nursing schools this year.
        I am encouraged by a recent analysis of retention among active duty
    Medical Corps officers in fiscal year 2005. More than 50 percent of
    physicians who completed their initial active duty service obligation
    last year agreed to stay for at least one more year. This analysis
    challenges the myth that increased operations tempo leads to lower
    retention. We continue to monitor this trend carefully and will be
    expanding the analysis to include dentists and nurses in the next year.
        The Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) is a primary source for
    our Nurse Corps Force. In recent years, ROTC has had challenges in
    meeting the required number of Nurse Corps accessions and as a
    consequence, USAREC has been asked to recruit a larger number of direct
    accession nurses to fill the gap. This has been difficult in an
    extremely competitive market. In fiscal year 2005, USAREC achieved 83
    percent of its Nurse Corps mission. We have recently raised the dollar
    amount that we offer individuals who enter our Army Nurse Candidate
    Program to $5,000 per year for max of two years with a $1,000 per month
    stipend. Last year we increased the multi-year bonuses we offer to
    Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists with emphasis on incentives for
    multi-year agreements. A year's worth of experience indicates that this
    increased bonus, 180-day deployments, and a revamped Professional
    Filler system to improve deployment equity is helping to retain CRNAs.
        Reserve Component Accessions and Retention continue to be a
    challenge. In fiscal year 2005 we expanded accessions bonuses to field
    surgeons, social workers, clinical psychologists, all company grade
    nurses and veterinarians in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
    We also expanded the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program and the
    Specialized Training Assistance Program for these specialties. In
    February 2006, we introduced a Baccalaureate of Science in Nursing
    (BSN) stipend program to assist non-BSN nurses complete their four-year
    degree in nursing. This will be an effective accessions and retention
    tool for Reserve Component Nurses who have only completed a two-year
    associates degree in nursing. Working with the Chief of the Army
    Reserve and the Director of the Army National Guard, we continue to
    explore ways to improve Reserve Component accessions and retention for
    this important group. The Reserve Components provide over fifty percent
    of Army Medicine's force structure and we have relied heavily on these
    citizen Soldiers during the last three years. They have performed
    superbly.

                         INSTALLATIONS AS OUR FLAGSHIPS

        Army healthcare providers train and maintain their clinical skills
    in hospitals and clinics at Army installations around the world
    everyday. Our medical treatment facilities are the centerpiece of
    medical readiness. These facilities provide day-to-day healthcare for
    Soldiers to ensure they are ready to deploy; allow providers to train
    and maintain clinical competency with a diverse patient population that
    includes Soldiers, retirees, and families; serve as medical force
    projection platforms, and provide resuscitative and recuperative
    healthcare for ill or injured Soldiers. In order to do this
    successfully, we must sustain appropriate workload and patient case-mix
    in our facilities and have a supportive network of civilian providers
    for the healthcare services we cannot effectively or efficiently
    provide.
        The combination of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decisions,
    Army Modular Force decisions, and the Integrated Global Positioning and
    Basing Strategy have presented us with a significant challenge and a
    significant opportunity to improve the way we care for patients at
    affected installations. This is complicated by the long-lead time
    necessary to plan and execute military construction and by low
    thresholds for military construction projects.
        Two important proposals coming forward from the Quadrennial Defense
    Review will enhance our flexibility to rapidly implement military
    construction projects in response to the challenges of Army
    restationing initiatives. One increases the Operations & Maintenance
    threshold for military construction from the current cap of $750,000 to
    $3,000,000. The second proposal increases the unspecified minor
    military construction threshold from $1,500,000 to $7,000,000--the same
    authority the Department of Veterans Affairs has. The Army fully
    supports these proposals. We need to have authority comparable to the
    Department of Veterans Affairs in order to reset our medical force in
    support of these restationing decisions.
        Much of the healthcare we provide to wounded Soldiers is funded
    through supplemental appropriations. The Military Amputee Care Program,
    centered at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Brooke Army Medical
    Center, has cared for nearly 400 amputees over the past three years. I
    want to thank the Congress and the subcommittee for your continued
    support. This program is leading the nation in improving amputee care
    and improving the field of prosthetics technology. They are working
    jointly with the Department of Veterans Affairs and civilian industry
    to share lessons learned and raise the standard of amputee care across
    our country. Due to your support and advances in the care of amputees,
    many of these Soldiers will be able to remain on active duty and many
    will return to combat units fully capable of performing their duties.

                            RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        Medical Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation are critical
    to our ongoing success both on the battlefield and in our hospitals
    around the country. Over the past year we have pulled 12 medical
    products out of the RDT&E process and fielded them to deployed forces
    because their demonstrated efficacy and safety in improving patient
    care and force protection on the battlefield. Despite all of our
    advances in battlefield medicine, hemorrhage continues to be the major
    cause of death on the battlefield. We continue to develop and test
    blood substitutes and hemostatic agents to mitigate blood loss in our
    combat casualties. Today, every Soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan deploys
    with a hemostatic bandage and a tourniquet. Evacuation assets quickly
    move casualties from the battlefield to Forward Surgical Teams and
    Combat Support Hospitals within minutes of injury. These advances in
    equipment, training, and doctrine are saving lives every day in Iraq
    and Afghanistan.
        Army scientists continue their work in research and development of
    new vaccines, including adenovirus vaccine, malaria vaccine, and plague
    vaccine. These vaccines are needed to protect against microbes that
    threaten Soldiers in basic training, in tropical locations, or as
    bioweapons. To support Homeland Security, Fort Detrick, Maryland has
    become the home for a National Interagency Biodefense Campus (NIBC).
    This interagency initiative collocates researchers from Department of
    Defense, Centers for Disease Control, Department of Agriculture,
    Department of Homeland Security and the National Institutes for Allergy
    and Infectious Diseases to achieve productive and efficient interagency
    cooperation in support of our Nation's biodefense.
        A key component of protecting Soldiers on the battlefield and
    citizens at home from the threat of chemical and biological agents is
    research and development of medical countermeasures against such
    agents. The infrastructure and expertise to do this resides within the
    U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC) at Fort
    Detrick, Maryland. The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for
    Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, and the U.S. Army
    Medical Research Institute for Chemical Defense (USAMRICD) at Aberdeen
    Proving Ground, Maryland, represent critical national capabilities
    that, in addition to National Defense, support the entire spectrum of
    Homeland Security.
        USAMRIID provides basic and applied research on biological threats
    resulting in medical solutions to protect the War Fighter and offers a
    comprehensive ability to respond to biological threats. USAMRIID
    scientists have more than 34 years of experience safely handling the
    world's deadliest pathogens in biocontainment. USAMRICD is charged with
    the development, testing, and evaluation of medical treatments and
    materiel to prevent and treat casualties of chemical warfare agents. In
    addition to research, USMRICD, in partnership with USAMRIID, educates
    health care providers in the medical management of chemical and
    biological agent casualties. Simply put the Nation's experts in
    chemical and biological weapons work at USAMRIID and USAMRICD.

                              SUSTAIN THE BENEFIT

        The Army requires a robust military medical system to meet the
    medical readiness needs of active duty service members in both war and
    peace, and to train and sustain the skills of our uniformed physicians,
    nurses, and combat medics as they care for family members, retirees,
    and retiree family members. Therefore we share the Department of
    Defense's (DOD) concern that the explosive growth in our healthcare
    costs jeopardizes our resources, not only to the military health system
    but in other operational areas as well.
        Expansion of TRICARE to the Selected Reserve in the fiscal year
    2005 and fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act highlights
    the challenge presented to DOD by expanding benefits with limited
    resources. We are very concerned by the projections of cost growth in
    the Defense Health Program over the next ten years. Without addressing
    the issues, our healthcare costs will total approximately 12 percent of
    the DOD budget by 2015. This growth forces us to look for additional
    efficiencies in our direct care system and threatens quality of life,
    readiness, and modernization programs.
        The Army and Army Medical Command fully support the Sustaining the
    Benefit proposals for working age retirees, as it represents a
    reasonable approach to meeting the challenge of providing for our
    Soldiers and the future of our force. After the proposal is fully
    implemented, TRICARE will still remain a very affordable option for our
    military retirees under the age of 65, with out-of-pocket costs for
    retirees still projected to be little more than half of the costs for
    members of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. The change
    merely begins to bring the cost share for working age military retirees
    in line with the same proportion it was when Congress created TRICARE.
        The Department of Defense continues to explore other opportunities
    to help control costs within the Defense Health Program and in many of
    initiatives the Army leads the Department in implementation and
    innovation. This year, I implemented a performance-based budget
    adjustment model throughout the Army Medical Command. This model
    accounts for provider availability, proper coding of medical records,
    and use of Clinical Practice Guidelines to adjust hospital and clinic
    funding levels to reflect the cost of actual healthcare delivered. The
    Southeast Regional Medical Command implemented this system in 2005
    where it increased staff awareness on properly documenting workload and
    staff availability. This model increases command attention to the
    business of delivering healthcare. It is an Internet-based model so
    commanders at all levels receive fast feedback on their organization's
    performance. Finally, use of Clinical Practice Guidelines encourages
    efficiency by using nationally accepted models for disease management.
    These adjustments provide my regional commanders the flexibility needed
    to move funds within their region to the facilities that are
    demonstrating improved performance and the ability to absorb more care
    from TRICARE networks.
        The Army is also leading the Department's implementation of an
    electronic medical record. The armed forces health longitudinal
    technology application (AHLTA) will help to significantly reduce the
    number of negative medical outcomes and errors compared to paper
    methods of documenting treatment and ordering drugs. Eighty-three
    percent of Army hospitals are using AHLTA today and every Army hospital
    will be using AHLTA by the end of August 2006. Nearly two-thirds of
    Army hospitals have fully implemented AHLTA and the Army leads DOD in
    the number of healthcare providers using AHLTA. For the past 3 years,
    Army providers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been using the
    Theater Medical Information Program so each Soldier's treatment data is
    available to providers at Landstuhl, Walter Reed, or other Army medical
    treatment facilities when that Soldier-patient comes home. The Army
    Medical Department now captures over 200,000 patient encounters a week
    in this 21st century medical record.
        The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure decisions demonstrate actions
    to improve the joint delivery of healthcare in both the National
    Capital Area and San Antonio, Texas. Recommendations to collocate
    medical training for all three Services at Fort Sam Houston, Texas and
    to collocate a number of medical research and development activities at
    Fort Detrick allows for enhanced synergy, collaboration and cost
    effectiveness. The next step is to move beyond a collocation of these
    activities to implementation of a business plan that realizes a true
    integration of DOD's medical training and research activities.
        The Army continues to support the development of a Unified Medical
    Command and is working closely with our sister Services and the Joint
    Staff to realize the full potential of this initiative. A fully
    functional unified command represents an opportunity to reduce multiple
    management layers within DOD's medical structure, inspire collaboration
    in medical training and research, and gain true efficiencies in
    healthcare delivery. These changes need to be made in conjunction with
    actions to Sustain the Benefit.
        In closing let me emphasize that the service and sacrifice of our
    Soldiers--and their families--cannot be measured with dollars and
    cents. The truth is that we owe far more than we can ever pay to those
    who have been wounded and to those who have suffered loss. Thanks to
    your support, we have been very successful in developing a healthcare
    delivery system that honors the commitment of our Soldiers, retirees,
    and their families made to our Nation by providing them with world-
    class medical care and peerless military force protection.
        Thank you again for inviting me to participate in this discussion
    today. I look forward to answering your questions.

        Senator Stevens. Admiral Arthur.

    STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL DONALD C. ARTHUR, M.D.,
                SURGEON GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
        Admiral Arthur. Good morning, Chairman Stevens and Ranking
    Member Inouye. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
    address the subcommittee.
        In this age of interoperability of the three services, I
    dare say that each of the surgeons could have given the same
    opening comments. And, in that spirit, I echo what General
    Kiley has said in his opening remarks, they equally apply to
    Navy medicine.
        We also have thousands of people deployed to Operation
    Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF), where
    we're very proud of the greater than 90 percent survival rate
    for combat injuries, the lowest disease and nonbattle injury
    rate in history, and the rapid rate at which combat casualties
    can be taken from the field, resuscitated, brought to Landstuhl
    and then for further care at Walter Reed, Bethesda, Malcolm
    Grow, and other great facilities throughout the country.
        We believe in family-centered care for these casualties,
    and we've continued the policy of having family members meet
    the casualties as they are received in our continental United
    States (CONUS) facilities. Most of the casualty care that we
    have delivered has been on the east coast, and we're proud to
    announce that this summer we'll open up a Comprehensive Combat
    Casualty Care Center in San Diego, where we will offer the full
    spectrum of rehabilitative services. I have asked that each
    member of the rehabilitate team have specific training in
    combat stress and the psychological effects of combat. I've
    also asked that this center be staffed by as many combat
    veterans, and especially combat-wounded sailors as possible to
    provide that degree of empathy for the combat-wounded.
        We are also reshaping our force for future events,
    especially humanitarian assistance, stability operations,
    homeland defense, and disaster relief, which is not currently
    part of our planning for combat casualty care injuries. I think
    the important thing is that we need to have the flexibility to
    accomplish all of the missions that we might be tasked to join.
    A good example of our flexibility is the U.S.N.S. Mercy, which
    launched recently on a humanitarian assistance mission to
    Southeast Asia, where it will, in collaboration with
    nongovernmental organizations (NGO), deliver humanitarian
    services to many people who have been unreached by the United
    States in any other way. And I think that that will provide us
    with a great deal of diplomacy in those areas.
        We are having challenges in recruiting and retention. I
    know that Senator Mikulski is interested in how we have used
    the loan repayment program. We are very proud that we have made
    some inroads in our recruiting efforts with these programs.
        One of the issues which is most challenging for us is the
    operational tempo, as General Kiley talked about. We have some
    specialities, especially those that are combat intensive--
    surgeons, nurse anesthetists, operating room (OR) technicians--
    who have deployed at least once, and sometimes two times, per
    year over the last 3 years.
        The administration's proposals to manage cost growth and
    sustain this valuable TRICARE benefit encourages beneficiaries
    to elect medically appropriate, cost-effective healthcare
    options. The Navy supports the words of the Joint Chiefs,
    Chairman Pace and Secretary Rumsfeld, and wants to work closely
    with the distinguished members of this subcommittee and all of
    Congress to sustain this great health benefit.
        I would like to mention one guest that we have with us
    today. That is Captain Catherine Wilson, who just returned from
    Kuwait as the commanding officer of the expeditionary medical
    force, so she's a nurse corps officer who is en route to Naval
    Hospital Bremerton, where she will be the commanding officer.
    And she's our officer with the most recent combat support
    experience. And she's with us today. I'm glad to have her here.
        Senator Stevens. Catherine, why don't you stand up so we
    can recognize you?
        Admiral Arthur. Cathy.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Admiral Arthur. One of the things that we have decided to
    do recently is to re-code all of our leadership billets to be
    corps-nonspecific, so that it could be--all leadership billets
    can be occupied by any corps in the Navy. And Captain Wilson is
    a good example, as a nurse corps officer, who went there and
    did an outstanding job in combat support.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me to give
    you some opening comments. And I look forward to all of your
    questions.
        Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before you today about the state of Navy
    Medicine and our plans for the upcoming year.
        Navy Medicine is an integral part of the Navy and Marine Corps team
    and plays a key role in our ever expanding and more diverse missions
    that continue to evolve as we fight the global war on terrorism.
    Against new enemies whose arsenals include catastrophic medical
    threats, Navy Medicine is a critical defensive weapon for the Navy and
    Marine Corps team. Consider just a few of these efforts: Navy Medicine
    provides surveillance for biological attacks, immunizes personnel to
    reduce the impact of bioterrorism events, assesses potential health
    threats in the operational environment, and provides expert clinical
    consultation to operational commanders, all while providing combat
    casualty care far-forward and exceptional care for our heroes and their
    families here at home.

                            FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION

        The primary focus of Navy Medicine is Force Health Protection. Navy
    Medicine is preparing a healthy and fit force that can go anywhere and
    accomplish any mission that the defense of the nation requires.
    Further, Navy Medicine goes with them, to protect the men and women in
    uniform from the hazards of the battlefield. But as hard as we try, all
    this preparation does not fully prevent the physical and psychological
    impact of combat service.

                              COMBAT CASUALTY CARE

        As you know, more seriously injured warfighters are surviving their
    wounds--more than in any other conflict in history. These low mortality
    rates can be attributed to improved trauma and combat casualty care of
    our medical personnel, advances in medical technology, better body
    armor, and improved training of our medical personnel; however, one of
    the most important contributors to saving lives on the battlefield has
    always been, and remains Navy corpsmen--Navy Medicine's first
    responders on the battlefield. The platoon corpsmen are supported by a
    team of field surgeons, nurses, medical technicians and support
    personnel in theater, who are supported by medical evacuation teams and
    overseas Military Treatment Facilities (MTF) working together with MTFs
    in the United States--this is the Navy Medicine continuum of care.
        Navy Medicine's commitment to the warfighter is clearly seen in the
    combat casualty care provided to injured and ill Marines and Sailors
    engaged in Operations IRAQI FREEDOM and ENDURING FREEDOM since the
    beginning of the Global War on Terror. Combat casualty care is a
    ``continuum-of-care,'' which begins with corpsmen in the field with the
    Marines; progresses to forward resuscitative care; on to theater level
    care; and culminates in care provided in route during patient
    evacuation to a military hospital. Medical care is being provided in
    Iraq and Afghanistan by organic Marine Corps health services units
    which include battalion aid stations, shock trauma platoons, surgical
    companies, and Forward Resuscitative Surgical Systems.
        During current operations, Navy Medicine has made significant
    advances in the health care provided by first responders and in access
    to resuscitative surgical care during the critical ``golden hour.'' A
    badly injured Marine who receives advanced medical care within an hour
    of injury is highly likely to be saved.
        Navy Medicine is also deployed worldwide with Naval air, surface
    and subsurface forces, providing daily health service support, force
    health protection, and medical intelligence and planning for the Navy's
    many traditional and nontraditional missions.
        Our operationally-focused research efforts in areas such as disease
    surveillance, bioweapon detection, protection and countermeasures,
    emerging illnesses, field medical gear, and advanced aviation and
    diving physiology facilitates the warfighter's efforts to do his or her
    job more safely and effectively.
        As our engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan continues, the number of
    injured service members who return in need of critical medical services
    will increase. As a result, and due to the severity and complexity of
    their injuries, increased cooperation and collaboration with our
    federal health care partners is essential to providing quality care. As
    an extension of Navy Medicine's ability to care for patients,
    partnerships with Veterans Affairs (VA) medical facilities continue to
    grow and develop into a mutually beneficial association. In 2003, the
    VA created the Seamless Transition Program to address the logistic and
    administrative barriers for active duty service members transitioning
    from military to VA-centered care. This program is working well and
    continues to improve as new lessons are learned. Recently-wounded
    Sailors and Marines differ from the VA's traditional rehabilitation
    patient in age, extent and complexity of injury, and family
    involvement; therefore, we are actively engaged at all levels to ensure
    that quality care is being provided throughout both systems.

              PARTNERSHIP WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

        Navy Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs continue to
    pursue enhancements to information management and technology
    initiatives to significantly improve the secure sharing of appropriate
    health information. Several efforts are underway that will enable us to
    share real-time patient information and to improve system
    interoperability. We also continue to support the pursuit of increased
    sharing and are currently managing medical and dental agreements across
    the country.
        In addition, our joint effort to create a hybrid organization based
    on new paradigms and practices continues to move forward. The Federal
    Health Care Facility at the site of Naval Hospital Great Lakes and the
    North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center will operate under a
    single line of authority, overseen by a Board of Directors. All
    services currently being offered at both facilities will remain
    available, but will be delivered more efficiently within a seamless
    patient care and support environment.
        Finally, in the area of military construction Navy Medicine is
    pursuing a variety of joint ventures that include a Consolidated
    Medical Clinic aboard the Naval Weapons Station in Charleston, SC; a VA
    clinic to be built to replace the Naval Clinic at Corry Station in
    Pensacola, FL; and planned replacement hospitals at Beaufort and Guam,
    each of which will include a VA presence. We are also pursuing Joint
    Incentive Fund Projects, as directed by the fiscal year 2003 National
    Defense Authorization Act, across the enterprise.

                                 MENTAL HEALTH

        The issue of mental health has been receiving much deserved
    attention since the beginning of OEF/OIF. I would like to take this
    opportunity to share with you some of the things that the Department of
    the Navy is doing to help the Navy and Marine Corps team cope with the
    stresses of combat.
        Anyone exposed to the extremely stressful environment of combat is
    affected by those events, with the effects varying with each individual
    service members. Although most cope with no significant or lasting
    impact, a small percentage will need assistance in dealing with their
    experiences, and some of them may ultimately be diagnosed and treated
    for Post Traumatic Stress Disease or other mental health conditions.
        Marines and Sailors are prepared for the psychological rigors of
    combat by being run through a realistic recreation of combat during
    pre-deployment training. Health screenings are conduced via the multi-
    tiered deployment health assessment process, prior to deployment,
    immediately upon return from theater, and most recently at the 3-6
    month post deployment mark. In theater, Sailors and Marines have prompt
    access to chaplains, medical officers, and other mental health
    providers embedded with the operation forces through the Operational
    Stress Control and Readiness (OSCAR) Program. All aircraft carriers
    have a psychologist attached to the medical department aboard ship, and
    many of our new expeditionary strike groups also deploy with
    psychologists or psychiatrists onboard. In addition, since
    reunifications can sometimes be difficult, Sailors and Marines
    returning home are prepared to reunite with their families and
    communities through the ``Warrior Transition'' and ``Return and
    Reunion'' programs.

                        DEPLOYMENTS AND QUALITY OF CARE

        On an average day in 2005, Navy Medicine had over 3,500 medical
    personnel from the active and reserve components deployed in support of
    Operations, Exercises or Training around the world. Our missions vary
    and include humanitarian assistance abroad and at home; environmental
    risk assessments around the world; and combat casualty care.
        Navy Medicine is continuously monitoring the impact deployments of
    medical personnel have on our ability to provide quality health care at
    home. Together with the network of TRICARE providers who support local
    Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs), beneficiaries have been able to
    continue accessing primary and specialty care providers. We closely
    monitor the access standards at our facilities using tools like the
    peer review process, to evaluate primary and specialty care access
    relative to the Department of Defense's standard.
        Another means used to ensure quality is our robust quality
    assurance and risk management programs that promote, identify, and
    correct process or system issues and address provider and system
    competency issues in real time. Our program promotes a patient safety
    culture that complies with nationally established patient safety goals.
    These goals include training in the area of medical team management to
    improve communication processes as well as implementation of the Bureau
    of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) advisory boards' recommendations in
    critical patient safety and quality areas, such as perinatal care.
        We have established evidence-based medicine initiatives and
    currently measure diabetes, asthma and women's breast health. Soon, we
    will add dental health and obesity.
        Navy Medicine also promotes healthy lifestyles through a variety of
    programs. These programs include: alcohol and drug abuse prevention,
    hypertension identification and control, tobacco use prevention and
    cessation, and nutrition and weight management. Partnering with other
    community services and line leadership enhances their effectiveness and
    avoids duplication.

                            CHANGES IN NAVY MEDICINE

        Since I testified before you nearly a year ago, Navy Medicine has
    gone through several changes to meet the evolving needs of the Navy and
    Marine Corps team. Last summer, we implemented a focused enterprise
    wide realignment effort to better direct our assets to maintain
    readiness and deliver the highest quality care in the most cost
    effective manner. This effort included standing up four regional
    commands--Navy Medicine West, Navy Medicine East, Navy Medicine
    National Capital Area and Navy Medicine Support Command--to provide a
    centralized and standardized structure of command and control. The
    regional commands have flexibility in supporting operational
    requirements while improving health care access and logistic support
    for all beneficiaries. Also, Navy Medicine's ten reserve medical units,
    Operational Health Support Units (OHSU), are aligned with the regional
    commands to gain operating efficiencies and maximizes the utilization
    of reserve assets. Furthermore, Reserve dental units have also been
    consolidated into the OHSUs to mirror changes implemented by Navy
    Medicine's active component.

                               EMERGING MISSIONS

        Pandemics of influenza have occurred in the past and will likely
    occur again in the future. For the first time, however, the United
    States along with the global community have an opportunity to
    cooperatively plan and prepare for a potential influenza pandemic. The
    operational and medical leaders of the Navy are working together to
    develop operational tactics, public health techniques, and clinical
    capabilities to protect our active duty members, their families and our
    civilian workforce against this threat. Navy Medicine's efforts will be
    a key component of the larger plan being developed by the Defense
    Department.
        Navy Medicine has proven to be an asset in providing humanitarian
    relief overseas and at home. Two significant examples are Operation
    Unified Assistance in the Indian Ocean and Hurricane Katrina relief in
    the Gulf of Mexico. Our most visible support in these disasters was the
    deployment of both hospital ships, USNS MERCY (T-AH 19) and USNS
    COMFORT (T-AH 20). The hospital ships have inpatient capabilities
    comparable to major medical facilities ashore. They each have fully-
    equipped operating rooms, inpatient beds, radiological services, a
    medical laboratory, a pharmacy, an optometry laboratory, a CT-scanner
    and two oxygen producing plants. Both have flight decks capable of
    landing large military helicopters evacuating casualties.
        For six months after the December 2004 Indonesian earthquake and
    tsunami, teams of Navy medical personnel and health care providers from
    the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Project HOPE conducted daily
    humanitarian assistance operations on board USNS MERCY. Operating off
    the coast of Banda Aceh, MERCY's medical staff treated more than 9,500
    patients ashore and afloat, and performed nearly 20,000 medical
    procedures, including more than 285 surgical and operating room cases.
    During a stop in Alor, Indonesia, MERCY's team cared for more than
    6,200 patients, and during a visit to East Timor, they saw more than
    8,000 residents.
        On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the coastal areas of
    Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, causing many deaths, displacing a
    large civilian population, damaging infrastructure including health
    care and public health systems, disrupting communications, and
    generating devastating flooding. Navy Medicine deployed over 800 health
    care professionals in support of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts and,
    with the help of Project Hope volunteers, treated over 14,500 people.
    Our personnel deployed with USS BATAAN, USS IWO JIMA, USNS COMFORT, the
    Joint Task Force Katrina Surgeon's cell, Forward Deployed Preventive
    Medicine Units, mental health response teams, Navy Construction
    Battalion Units, as well as in direct support of Navy clinics in
    Mississippi and Louisiana. Navy Medicine coordinated supporting relief
    efforts with medical staff and supplies from Navy medical facilities
    across the country.
        Earlier this year, U.S. military field hospitals in Shinkiari and
    Muzaffarabad provided the earthquake-stricken people of Pakistan with
    medical assistance. Navy Medicine's Forward Deployed Preventive
    Medicine Units and the Marine Corps' Combined Medical Relief Team 3
    were located in Shinkiari while the U.S. Army's hospital was set up in
    the city of Muzaffarabad. Between these units, U.S. forces brought to
    bear medical capabilities including operating rooms, x-ray equipment,
    pharmacies, laboratories, and many other assets all in an effort to
    supplement organic Pakistani medical facilities which were hit hardest
    by the earthquake. Surgeons, general medical officers, nurses, and
    dentists were joined by other support Marines and Sailors in treating
    victims of this natural disaster.

                               MEDICAL RECRUITING

        Although our missions continue to evolve, we, like the other
    services and the private sector, are struggling to meet all of our
    recruitment, retention and end strength goals in health care
    professions. The need for skilled doctors and nurses has been
    demonstrated time and again throughout the global war on terror;
    however, the number of medical school applicants and graduates in this
    country is declining. The Navy, together with Navy Medicine, is working
    to improve recruiting and retention of doctors and nurses so we can
    meet our deployment requirements. Some of the efforts being considered
    include: improving compensation parity with the private sector;
    studying incentive programs that better meet the needs of the current
    student population; and offering an accession bonus and medical
    insurance coverage for student programs.

                    SUSTAINING THE BENEFIT/HEALTH CARE COSTS

        Navy Medicine has a dual mission. While meeting the operational
    medical needs of our warfighters as illustrated above, Navy Medicine
    continues to provide the finest, cost-effective health care to
    America's heroes and their families at home and overseas.
        The Navy is proud of the exceptional health benefit and health care
    delivery system that Congress and the Defense Department have built,
    expanded upon and improved over the years. In the last ten years, both
    congressional and departmental initiatives have addressed gaps in
    program coverage and improved access to care for millions of military
    beneficiaries. These new benefits have made a positive contribution to
    our recruitment and retention efforts, and we wish to sustain them for
    the long-term.
        In order for the Department to sustain the benefits that so many
    have come to expect, the long-term costs of the program must be
    contained for the program to remain viable in the future. TRICARE
    benefits have been expanded and implemented; however, there have been
    no changes in beneficiary cost shares since 1995. The Department
    proposes to restructure beneficiary contributions to proportions
    similar to when TRICARE was established in 1995. These changes will
    ensure we will be able to continue providing the same high level of
    access and quality care enjoyed by our beneficiaries today. As Chairman
    Pace testified before you earlier this year, the Joint Chiefs have
    unanimously recommended that we renorm the cost sharing for the health
    care benefit.
        As overall health care costs have grown for both the Department and
    the private sector, the expanding disparity in out-of-pocket costs
    between TRICARE and civilian health plans has led to a significant
    increase in the number of retired beneficiaries under the age of 65 who
    are now using TRICARE as their primary health insurance. This has
    resulted in an increase in the costs borne by the Department of
    Defense. The increased utilization, especially among this group of
    retirees, together with the expansion of benefits and healthcare
    inflation, have created a perfect storm. Costs have doubled in five
    years from $19 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $38 billion in fiscal
    year 2006. Analysts at Health Affairs project these costs will reach
    $64 billion by 2015, about 12 percent of the Department's budget (vs.
    4.5 percent in 1990). This current rate of medical cost growth is
    unsustainable and internal efficiencies are not, and will not, be
    sufficient to stem the tide of rising health care costs.
        The Navy honors the service and sacrifice of our active duty and
    reserve members and retirees, as well as their families. Because of
    their service and sacrifice the Navy continually strives to provide a
    truly outstanding health benefit for them. The Administration's
    proposals to manage cost growth and sustain this valuable benefit
    encourage beneficiaries to elect medically appropriate cost-effective
    healthcare options. A very important point of the proposals is that the
    changes in cost sharing will not impact active duty troops or retirees
    over age 65. In addition, catastrophic protections would remain intact
    for retiree families--at $3,000 per year.
        The Navy strongly supports the words of Joint Chiefs' Chairman Pace
    and Secretary Rumsfeld and wants to work closely with the distinguished
    members of this committee and all of Congress to sustain this great
    health benefit for the men and women of our Armed Forces and their
    families. Together, we will sustain the vital needs of the military to
    recruit, train, equip and protect our Service members who daily support
    our National Security responsibilities throughout the world, keeping
    our nation strong.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman, Navy Medicine has risen to the challenge of providing
    a comprehensive range of services to manage the physical and mental
    health challenges of our brave Sailors and Marines, and their families
    who have given so much in the service of our nation. We have
    opportunities for continued excellence and improvement, both in the
    business of preserving health and in the mission of supporting our
    deployed forces.
        I thank you for your tremendous support to Navy Medicine and look
    forward to our continued shared mission of providing the finest health
    services in the world to America's heroes and their families--those who
    currently serve, those who have served and the family members who
    support them.

        Senator Stevens. General Taylor.

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL GEORGE PEACH TAYLOR,
                JR., M.D., SURGEON GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
                THE AIR FORCE
        General Taylor. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and members
    of the subcommittee, it's a pleasure and privilege to be here
    today. Your Air Force Medical Service continues to serve
    America proudly, whether in caring for our wounded in the Balad
    theater hospital, in flying them safely home, in treating
    thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims or in providing quality
    healthcare to our home-station troops and their families.
        During the gulf coast disaster, a Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA) physician told me that one of the most
    impressive things about our people is that they treated every
    patient during that chaotic, crowded, and terrible time, as if
    they were family, as if the person on the stretcher was their
    own father, mother, sister, brother, or child pulled from
    harm's way. I would add that this is true, from my experience,
    for all patients treated by Air Force medics, to include
    coalition forces, the Iraqis, and even the occasional
    insurgent.
        To maintain this level of quality, ability, and esprit de
    corps throughout our Air Force, we are focusing on the three
    major challenges our Chief of Staff, General Moseley, has
    outlined--fighting the global war on terrorism, taking care of
    our people, and recapitalizing our valuable assets.
        What we are accomplishing in Operations Enduring Freedom
    and Iraqi Freedom is phenomenal. If you had the opportunity to
    see the USA Today article and video published on March 27, you
    saw firsthand what incredible work our medics are doing across
    the services. The reporter, Greg Zororya said, quote, ``To save
    lives in the battlefield, medical innovations are born in days
    rather than in years. And as with wars past, the new ways of
    treating the injured and sick in Iraq and Afghanistan have
    benefits beyond the battlefield,'' close quotes. He was
    absolutely correct. Through our in-theater experience, we are
    exploring uncharted territory in blood products and medical
    surveillance, telehealth, trauma response, and many more areas
    of cutting-edge medicine.
        Our commitment to joint operations cannot be
    overemphasized. As part of the joint team, we have more than
    600 ground medics in 10 deployed locations. In 2005, we treated
    more than 12,000 patients in Balad alone. Our Balad chief of
    intensive care, Colonel Ty Putnam, said, ``The caseload rivals
    any major trauma center in the USA.'' That level of experience
    has resulted in unsurpassed survival rates. As a former Balad
    medical group commander said, ``If you arrive here alive, you
    have about a 95-96 percent chance of leaving here alive.''
        The other crucial piece of our ability is to aeromedical
    evacuate our patients out quickly, getting them from point of
    injury to the States usually within 72 hours. The Air Force
    Medical Service was honored by the USO recently for the lives
    we've saved through our ``critical care in the air''
    capability.
        The value of the care we provide in theater with our sister
    services has been recognized in recent months by many grateful
    patients, among them Members of the U.S. Congress. The same
    capability to stabilize patients and quickly move them to
    higher levels of care was on clear display last summer on the
    gulf coast. I'm very proud of the role the Air Force total
    force team played in working with other Federal, State, and
    local agencies in moving over 3,000 sick or infirmed Americans
    from the devastated coast to shelters throughout the country,
    in addition to treating 7,600 people on the ground. But taking
    care of our people, General Moseley's second challenge is, and
    always has been, critical to the Air Force Medical Service. We
    continue to put great emphasis on deployment health
    surveillance of our troops. You know we are particularly
    concerned about them--you are particularly concerned about
    their mental health, as are we. Currently, Air Force post-
    deployment health assessments show only 1 to 2 percent of our
    redeploying airmen are experiencing--or expressing mental
    health concerns.
        We recently rolled out the post-deployment health
    reassessment program, and we've received over 2,000 so far. Of
    those, 38 percent report some health concern, and about 5
    percent report at least one mental health concern. While this
    may indicate that we are identifying additional problems, it's
    a little too early in the data collection to draw conclusions.
    We are watching this very carefully.
        We are excited about the composite occupational health
    operational risk tracking, or COHORT, initiative which will
    assist us in tracking the health of our personnel, as it will
    provide occupational and medical surveillance data on every
    member, from the time an airman joins the Air Force until
    retirement or separation, opening up enormous fields of data
    never before available to us.
        Our third challenge of recapitalizing our assets has become
    increasingly significant for the Air Force Medical Service. Six
    percent of our current facility inventory is more than 50 years
    old. By 2025, that could grow to 35 percent. With an annual
    military construction budget of $60 million, we find we have to
    phase any major construction out over several years. In fact,
    this $60 million, relatively flat for the past decade, now buys
    one-sixth the amount of construction it did 10 years ago.

                          BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

        We believe the BRAC process will help us relieve this
    situation as we combine facilities, close small, underutilized
    hospitals, or convert them to ambulatory surgery clinics. We
    also continue to seek ways to strengthen our partnerships in
    the civilian sector and with the Department of Veterans
    Affairs.
        Finally, on behalf of our military families, I pledge my
    support to you and my fellow surgeons to work together to
    preserve the superb healthcare benefit that we offer. It is
    second to none, and so greatly earned and deserved by our
    military heroes and their families.
        Finally, as this hearing began, the Chief of Staff
    announced my retirement, effective this year. I'd like to say
    what a privilege it is to have served the Nation for the last
    27\1/2\ years, half of that serving an Air Force that's been in
    combat. The Air Force has been flying combat operations since
    1991.
        I've been part of an Air Force Medical Service that's made
    a difference. We've re-engineered our field hospitals, we've
    re-engineered our mirror medical evacuation system to allow
    people to move from foxhole to Bethesda in 36 hours. We've
    integrated into ground operations. A large portion of the
    ground-force support is done by airmen today.
        A few things to think about. One is, I ask for us all to
    watch the BRAC implementation. There--as the head of the
    Medical Joint Cross-Service Group, working with the Base
    Realignment and Closure Commission, there are fairly innovative
    recommendations that need to be implemented, in terms of
    facility structure and combining facilities, and we just need
    to make sure that as we do this, it's not just the finances,
    but it is the change in the way we practice medicine, and
    changing the infrastructure, that the BRAC recommendations
    gives us a chance to rebalance. And so, we all need to pay
    attention over the next 5 years as we implement the
    recommendations that came through BRAC.
        Second, I think we need to continue in areas where we're
    challenged with funds to watch for centralization. There is a
    lure of saving money with centralizing assets. The Air Force
    Medical Service is a highly decentralized operation, and that
    drives innovation very close to mission, innovation in field
    medicine, innovation in aeromedical evacuation, innovation in
    local healthcare. And I'd just say that we need to watch very
    carefully about centralization.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Finally, it's been my privilege to serve with a team of
    healthcare professionals throughout my career that I can only
    describe with one word, and that word is ``magnificent,'' a
    magnificent group of people in a magnificent mission in a
    magnificent service, part of a magnificent Department, in the
    best country on the planet.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General (Dr.) George Peach Taylor, Jr.

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be
    here today to share with you stories of the Air Force Medical Service's
    success both on the battlefront and the home front.
        The Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) continues to provide world-
    class health care and health service support anywhere in the world at
    anytime. This includes ensuring that active duty and Reserve component
    personnel of all Services are healthy and fit before they deploy, while
    deployed, and when they return home. It also includes providing the
    same quality of care--and access to care--for our 1.2 million TRICARE
    enrollees.
        This year, our well-honed capabilities were important national
    assets in the medical response and evacuation of thousands of fellow
    Americans who were victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Our Total
    Force Airmen medics converged on the ravaged region twice in one month
    to work with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) medical teams
    to care for and transport thousands of ill patients. Overall, our Total
    Force medics provided health care for 7,600 people. Another 3,000, many
    of whom were critically ill, were safely aeromedically evacuated from
    the region.
        During our response to these natural disasters, a senior physician
    in FEMA's disaster medical assistance team told me that one of the most
    impressive things about our people is that they treated every patient
    during that chaotic, crowded, and terrible time as if they were family,
    as if the person on the stretcher were their own father, mother,
    sister, brother, or child pulled from harm's way.
        This catastrophic event, though, is something for which we are
    uniquely trained and equipped to perform. Obviously, the positive
    attitudes of our people and their collective competence go a long way
    toward ensuring that the AFMS successfully responds to and overcomes
    any disaster--natural, domestic or foreign.
        To ensure we maintain these abilities and attitudes, Air Force
    Chief of Staff, General T. Michael Moseley, has outlined three major
    challenges for leadership to focus upon: fighting the Global War on
    Terrorism; preserving our culture of excellence through the training
    and development of our people, and breaking the vicious cycle of
    operating the oldest inventory in the history of the United States Air
    Force through recapitalization.

                            GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

        The Global War on Terrorism will be with us for years to come.
    Among the Air Force's most critical components in successfully fighting
    this war both overseas and here at home is considering how we plan for
    our long-term requirements.
        Key in accomplishing this is reinforcing that the Air Force is one
    organization--not active-duty, Guard and Reserve ``tribes.'' This
    philosophy necessarily extends to interoperating with all of our sister
    Services, a method of warfighting that has taken--and will continue to
    take--growing importance unmatched at any other time in our nation's
    history.
        Most certainly, our light, lean and mobile expeditionary medical
    support--or EMEDS--is the linchpin of our ground mission. As
    importantly, the Air Force Medical Service makes its unique
    contribution to the Total Force and joint operational environment
    through our aeromedical evacuation and en route care mission.
        Significant as these two components are, we must also continually
    refine the Air Expeditionary Force deployment system; ensure the pre-
    and post-deployment health and fitness of our troops; and diligently
    work to maintain the technological edge over our enemies--overseas and
    in the United States--through the development of bio-surveillance and
    medical treatment capabilities.

                                     EMEDS

        EMEDS, especially at the Air Force Theater Hospital at Balad Air
    Base in Iraq, has validated the ``golden hour'' concept--the importance
    of delivering care in first 60 minutes after injury. This life-saving
    capability has proved its effectiveness, and no one illustrates the
    importance of its capability better than the joint troops who make it
    happen.
        ``If a patient requires surgery to survive, it will be done here,''
    said Staff Sergeant Jalkennen Joseph, an emergency room medic. The
    reality and benefit of having a robust surgical capability forward has
    been key to the lowest casualty rate in the history of combat. Colonel
    (Dr.) Elisha Powell, former 332nd Expeditionary Medical Group (EMDG)
    Commander in Balad, supports this fact that ``If you arrive here alive,
    you have about a 96 percent chance of leaving here alive.''
        We are proud of the teamwork between Air Force flight medics and
    the Army and Air Force medics on the ground in the patient
    administration office of our theater hospital as they prepare for the
    arrival of casualties. ``I give all the credit in the world to flight
    medics . . . they do things you only see in movies or read about in
    books. They do it on a daily basis and they do it well.'' said Staff
    Sergeant Joseph. Moreover, although the Theater Hospital at Balad is
    largely staffed by the Air Force, the symphony of teamwork is its
    cornerstone. Joseph continues, ``We have all really clicked together .
    . . we run this place smooth, doing the same mission. We live by the
    hospital motto `One team. One mission.' ''
        In this light, we foresee a continued need for this important
    capability to provide health care anywhere, and we will continue to
    refine this to meet joint warfighting medical requirements.
        Our commitment to Joint operations cannot be overemphasized. As
    part of a joint team, we now have more than 600 ground medics in 10
    deployed locations. In addition to Balad, we also operate two smaller
    hospitals in Iraq--one in Kirkuk and another at the Baghdad
    International Airport. Every day, Air Force medics in these theater
    hospitals are saving the lives of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen,
    civilians, coalition and Iraqi forces, friend and foe alike. We treated
    over 12,000 patients in 2005 at Balad alone. These included U.S.
    forces, Iraqi Security Forces, U.S. and Iraqi civilians, as well as a
    combination of coalition forces, third country nationals and detainees.
        Because our medical teams are operating closer to the front lines
    than ever before, patients are getting advanced medical care within
    hours, not days or weeks as they had in the past. However, as our
    experience in the past four years has shown us, as important as beds
    and forward deployed health care is, equally important is the ability
    to quickly move patients from the field to higher levels of care.

                             AEROMEDICAL EVACUATION

        Aeromedical Evacuation (AE) crewmembers perform many of the same
    life-saving activities their peers accomplish in hospitals, but in the
    back of an aircraft at over 30,000 feet. The conditions are sometimes
    challenging as crewmembers work under the noise of the engines or when
    flying through turbulence--but there is no place else they would rather
    be.
        ``It is a great feeling of responsibility and a privilege to care
    for these patients,'' says Colonel (Dr.) Peter Muskat, director of
    clinical training at the Cincinnati Center for Sustainment and Trauma
    Readiness Skills (C-STARS), who has flown 15 missions from Balad.
    Without a shadow of doubt, casualties aboard AE flights are entrusted
    to warrior medics well trained to effectively perform under these
    conditions. Colonel Muskat: ``From the point of injury in theater to
    the time the injured person is medevac'd to the states, most times
    within 72 hours, they receive care from medics who have been exposed to
    every potential problem a trauma patient may face on the ground and
    during that flight.''
        It is crucial to emphasize that of our approximately 400 AE
    personnel deployed today, the majority of them--almost 90 percent--are
    Guard and Reserve. A better example of fighting together in the Global
    War on Terrorism simply escapes me--the Reserve Component contribution
    to AE operations represents an undeniable hallmark of Total Force.
        Occasionally, our AE crews transport patients who are so ill or
    injured that they require constant and intensive care. When that
    happens, our AE medical capability is supplemented by Critical Care Air
    Transport Teams, or CCATTs. These are like medical SWAT teams that fly
    anywhere on a moment's notice to treat and extract the most seriously
    injured troops.
        Team members carry special gear that can turn almost any airframe
    into a flying intensive care unit within minutes. An in-theater EMEDS
    commander told me that CCATTs are a good news/bad news entity. He said,
    ``The bad news is, if you see the CCATT team jumping on a plane, you
    know someone out there is hurt bad. The good news is, if you see the
    CCATT jumping on a plane, you know that someone will soon be in the
    miraculous hands of some of the best trained medics in existence.''
        No where in recent AE operations was this capability highlighted
    better than when three members of a CCATT, Major (Dr.) Linda Boyd, an
    emergency medicine physician, Major Denise Irizarry, a nurse, and
    Master Sergeant Jeffrey Wahler, a respiratory therapist, were aboard a
    C-17 Globemaster III from Ramstein Air Base, Germany, to Andrews Air
    Force Base, Maryland. They treated 30 casualties including ABC
    anchorman Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt. Major Boyd said, ``It
    was awesome--we did intubations and ventriculostomies--a procedure
    where a device is place into the ventricles of the brain when needed to
    drain spinal fluid and relieve pressure.'' On a regular basis, our AE
    warrior medics leverage superior training, commitment to excellence,
    and talent to uphold our requirements to support America's heroes who
    defend our great nation.
        Overall, partnering with our critical care air transport teams, our
    aeromedical evacuation system has made it possible to move seriously
    injured patients in an astonishingly quick time, as short as 72 hours
    from the battleground to stateside medical care--unheard of even a
    decade ago.

                                  DEPLOYMENTS

        When I joined the Air Force in the 1970s, we planned, trained, and
    equipped our medics on the basis of the threats faced in two major
    operational plans of short duration. That construct is no longer valid,
    as can clearly be seen with the Global War on Terrorism.
        Today's Air Expeditionary Force structure was created, in part, in
    response to this new construct. The AFMS needed to restructure itself,
    too, so that it could face multiple commitments overseas of both short
    and long duration. Our nation requires that medics field combat support
    capabilities that are very capable, rapidly deployable, and sustainable
    over long periods.
        Medics must be placed at locations where they can maintain the
    skills they need for their combat medicine mission. It is also vital
    that these locations allow the medics to deploy easily without
    significantly interrupting the care they provide the base or TRICARE
    beneficiaries, especially at those locations with sustained medical
    education training programs.
        This challenge is straightforward: create expeditionary medics who
    are focused on developing the skills for the field and eager to deploy
    for four of every twenty months. Currently, we assign medics at large
    facilities into groups of five so that one team can be deployed at any
    one time while the other four remain to work and train at home station.
    We also actively work the ratio of active-to-Reserve component medics
    to determine the proper mix of active duty and Reserve component to
    ensure the best balance between the ability to deploy quickly and the
    capability to surge forces when necessary.
        We are also actively reviewing the total size of the AFMS to make
    sure that over the next few decades we can successfully fulfill our
    wartime mission while still providing the peacetime benefit to our
    members, retirees, and their families.
        Finally, a vital part of our preparation is state-of-the-art
    training, such as our Coalition for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness
    Skills, or C-STARS, where we partner with renowned civilian medical
    centers in Baltimore, St. Louis, and Cincinnati to allow our medics to
    receive trauma training. While our medics--300 in 2005--receive
    training that is unavailable in most of our stateside hospitals, we
    provide a service to the people of those cities--a mutually beneficial
    relationship that enhances preparedness both at home and abroad. Many
    students laud C-STARS as the best medical training they have received
    to prepare them for deployment.

                               DEPLOYMENT HEALTH

        Collaborative arrangements among the medical, chaplain and family
    support communities support our claim the Air Force has personnel and
    processes in place to monitor and address health concerns before,
    during and after deployments.
        Deployment Health Surveillance is a continuous process of Force
    Health Protection. From accession, through service, and into separation
    and retirement, the Air Force Medical Service is dedicated to ensuring
    the health of our Airmen. We maintain a robust Individual Medical
    Readiness program to ensure each Airman, active and reserve component,
    is assessed for deployability and mission capability. At the point of
    deployment, we conduct a tailored deployment health assessment to
    include appropriate immunizations, medications, and health
    communication of known threats in the deployment area. In OIF/OEF,
    these activities combined with continuous health support in theater
    have resulted in the lowest disease/non battle injury rate ever
    experienced in combat operations.
        Although some of these efforts are strictly medical in nature,
    others focus on specific and increasing needs such as mental health. To
    address the mental health needs of deployed airmen, the Air Force
    deploys two types of mental health teams: a rapid response team and an
    augmentation team. Mental health rapid response teams consist of one
    psychologist, one social worker and one mental health technician. Our
    mental health augmentation teams are staffed with one psychiatrist,
    three psychiatric nurses and two mental health technicians. Deployed
    mental health teams use combat stress control principles to provide
    consultation to leaders and prevention and intervention to deployed
    airmen.
        I was involved in the medical combat service support laydown for
    Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM, and one of my highest
    priorities was to ensure that the Air Force fielded mental health
    professionals early and as far forward as possible to not only treat
    casualties, but to put in place strong prevention and outreach
    programs. Today, the Air Force has 49 mental health personnel deployed
    for current operations, 36 of whom are supporting joint service
    requirements. We also position psychiatric nurses at our aeromedical
    staging facilities to better address emerging psychological issues for
    all troops being medically evacuated out of the combat theater.
        The Air Force and the Department of Defense have enhanced efforts
    to monitor and address the health concerns of deploying service
    members. Airmen complete the post-deployment health assessment (PDHA)
    at the end of a deployment, and are now being assessed again 90-180
    days after return from deployment via the post-deployment health
    reassessment (PDHRA). These instruments provide an overall health
    assessment of our Airmen, with an emphasis on mental health.
        A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical
    Association examined the mental health problems reported by Army and
    Marine combat troops following deployments. We have examined the same
    data sets for Air Force personnel, and found that Airmen report
    significantly less mental health concerns following deployments than
    Army and Marine combat units. According to the report, while over 19
    percent of Army and Marine personnel reported at least one mental
    health symptom after an OIF deployment, only 4.7 percent of Air Force
    OIF deployers reported at least one mental health symptom. Only about 1
    percent of Air Force deployers were referred for mental health care
    following a post-deployment health assessment. The lower incidences of
    mental health problems for our Airmen are most likely attributable to
    both the type and length of Air Force missions. That said, we are
    closely scrutinizing deploying Airmen who may be at greater risk for
    mental health concerns, such as convoy personnel and medics.
        The Air Force is also standardizing existing redeployment and
    reintegration programs to help Airmen and family members readjust
    following deployments. These programs are collaborative among the
    medical, chaplain and family support communities. Airmen and their
    families can also take advantage of The Air Force Readiness Edge, a
    comprehensive guide to deployment-related programs and services, as
    well as Air Force OneSource, a contractor-operated program that
    provides personal consultation via the web, telephone or in-person
    contacts, on matters that range from severely injured service member
    family impact to dealing with grief and loss to a myriad of other
    family related matters. Air Force OneSource is available 24 hours a
    day, and can be accessed from any location.

                               TECHNOLOGICAL EDGE

        Terrorism confronts us all with the prospect of chemical,
    biological, and radiological attacks. Of those, one of the most
    disconcerting to me are the biological weapons. Nightmare scenarios
    include rapidly spreading illnesses so vicious that if we cannot detect
    and treat the afflicted quickly, there would be an exponential
    onslaught of casualties.
        Medics have the capability to find, track, target, engage and
    defeat such biological threats, whether they are naturally occurring,
    like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and influenza, or man-
    made, like weaponized smallpox.
        The rapidly advancing biogenetics field may provide the technology
    that allows us to identify and defeat these threats. Many consider the
    coupling of gene chip technology with advanced informatics and alerting
    systems as the most critical new health surveillance technology to
    explore--and we are doing it now in the Air Force.
        In 2005, an Epidemic Outbreak Surveillance project, an Air Force
    initiative, was successfully tested during a real-world exercise in
    Washington, DC, that began shortly before the 2005 inauguration and
    ended after the State of the Union Address.
        During the exercise, medical teams around the National Capital
    Region collected samples from patients who had fever and flu-like
    illnesses. The samples were transported to a central lab equipped with
    small, advanced biological identification units--a ``gene chip''--that
    tested for common or dangerous bacteria and viruses. These results were
    known within 24 hours, not the days or weeks normally required. A web-
    based program then tracked outbreak patterns, providing an additional
    mechanism to automatically alert medics and officials of potential
    epidemics or biological attacks. We continue to work with this
    technology to create better diagnostics for our normal clinical work as
    well as for early detection of a new disease, whether it be avian flu
    or a biological attack.
        We are seeking techniques to convert common tap or surface water
    into safe intravenous solutions in the field. We are also developing
    the ability to generate medical oxygen in the field rather than
    shipping oxygen in its heavy containers into the field.
        Telehealth is another fascinating technology that enhances the
    capabilities of our medics. It allows providers in Iraq to send
    diagnostic images such as X-rays through the Internet back to
    specialists located anywhere in the world for a near real-time consult.
    This ensures that each Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine in the field
    has access to one of our outstanding specialists almost anytime and
    anywhere.
        In 2006, we expect to start transitioning another advancement--our
    ability to create an unlimited number of cohorts of our beneficiaries
    using the Composite Occupational Health and Operational Risk Tracking
    (COHORT) initiative. This will provide occupational and medical
    surveillance from the time they join the Air Force until retirement or
    separation, regardless of where they serve or what job they perform. We
    will finally be able to tie together medical conditions, exposure data,
    duty locations, control groups, and demographic databases to globally
    provide individual and force protection and intervention, reducing
    disease and disability. These tools will work in near real time, and
    eventually will be automated to work continuously in the background,
    always searching for key sentinel events.
        We are also proud of our collaborative efforts and pursuit of
    technological advances that extend beyond threats of biological or
    epidemic concerns, to also include advancements in more common diseases
    such as diabetes.
        In collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center,
    the USAF is actively engaged in diabetes research. The emphasis of this
    research is on primary prevention, education, and lifestyle
    modifications. The ``test bed'' includes both urban and rural western
    Pennsylvania, the USAF's Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio,
    Texas, and rural Texas. The ultimate goal is to develop a template for
    the development of Diabetes Centers of Excellence that can be utilized
    across America to include the military community and civilian resources
    for poor under-privileged regions. This research continuum and
    partnership will also add significantly to the development of a
    Diabetes Outreach Clinic at the Wilford Hall Medical Center that will
    ultimately serve the over 65-year old civilian community as well.
        The program utilizes state-of-the-art educational principles and
    tools as well as groundbreaking technology. Telemedicine applications,
    videos, specialized retinal cameras (to demonstrate pathology) are some
    of the high-tech educational tools. A computerized Comprehensive
    Diabetes Management Program designed to promote self-management will be
    tested as well. These educational efforts target both adults with Type
    II diabetes as well as at-risk children. Biochemical research involving
    platelet derived growth factors as related to wound healing (for
    diabetes related wounds) are also under study.
        Diabetes has become a major healthcare crisis in the United States.
    Currently, over 20 million Americans have diabetes and that number is
    growing at 8 percent a year. In an effort to halt this unhealthy trend,
    this program will develop the Premier National Model for diabetes
    education and treatment. The program is well underway and remarkably,
    beneficiaries are seeing fruits of this labor already.

                                     PEOPLE

        Almost half the people currently serving in the United States Air
    Force joined after September 11, 2001. They knew what they were getting
    into, and there's no question that the military's medical personnel are
    a critical component of the Global War On Terrorism. As such, one of
    the Chief of Staff Air Force's (CSAF) key priorities--get the right
    number of Airmen into the right jobs--takes on added significance.
        The Air Force must have a balanced force of officer and enlisted
    Airmen. Force shaping is necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the
    Air Force and to maximize career opportunity for all Airmen.
        Even so, the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) continues to face
    significant challenges in recruiting and retaining physicians,
    dentists, and nurses--the people whom we depend upon to provide care to
    our beneficiaries. The special pays, loan repayment programs, and
    bonuses to our active and Reserve component medics are helpful in
    retaining people. In fact, nearly 85 percent of nurses entering the Air
    Force say they joined in large part because of these incentives.
        The need to retain and recruit health care providers and
    specialists will grow as the military remains involved in the Global
    War on Terrorism for years to come.
        As Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Dr. William
    Winkenwerder, Jr., has said that the military medical community today
    is engaged ``in a mission that, perhaps, has never before been so
    complex, challenging, or far-reaching as we find today.''
        Still, I am heartened by the caliber of the folks we continue to
    attract. One such person is Capt. (Dr.) An Duong, who, gave up her
    family medicine practice in Florida and came on active duty at Keesler
    Air Force Base, Mississippi, this year.
        Doctor Duong was born in Saigon, South Vietnam, in 1971 and
    emigrated to the United States from the communist-held country at age
    14 with her mother and two siblings. Now an American citizen, she said
    that part of the reason she joined was because of her early upbringing
    in a communist country. She said: ``America adopted me and raised me. I
    owe her a lot.''
        She also said she was not fearful--but willing--to serve in a war
    zone. ``I'm not intimidated about war. I was born into war--a child of
    war.''
        As we work to balance the force with the right combination of
    active duty, reserve component, civilian and contract staff, we must
    keep in mind that we deploy people, not our hospitals and clinics. We
    take care of the nation's heroes, past and present, and it takes the
    finest of medical staffs to care for this country's finest.

                                RECAPITALIZATION

        We recognize the importance of maintaining a modern and effective
    infrastructure in our military treatment facilities, from clinics to
    medical centers. This is essential as we consider how the Air Force
    plans for its long-term requirements. The atmosphere in which our
    medics work is as important as any other retention factor. Our patients
    deserve not only the most brilliant medical and dental minds, but also
    first class equipment and facilities.
        Though the TRICARE contracts create a strong civilian support
    system to augment the care we provide in our direct care medical
    treatment facilities. We continue to work to improve the quality of
    military health care with to investments and modernization of key
    medical facilities, replacing aging infrastructure, and to improvements
    in health care delivery efficiency.
        When General Moseley recently stated that the Air Force is
    operating with the oldest inventory in the history of the Air Force, he
    was largely referring to our aircraft inventory. But that assessment
    also applies to medical facilities with the AFMS.
        As an example, six percent of our current inventory is more than 50
    years old; by 2025, it could grow to 35 percent. We've spent $30
    million in less than two years to fix structure failure at our 46-year-
    old facility at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma. We've fixed safety code
    violations in five facilities, which ranged in age from 30 to 48 years.
        This kind of budgetary pressure has changed the way we think about
    healthcare facilities. One initiative we are proud of is our clinic
    replacement at MacDill AFB, Florida. This 236,000 square foot new
    clinic will include a drive-through satellite pharmacy, which will
    consolidate 20 buildings and reduce our medical footprint by 25,000
    square feet. Phase one of this project will cost $55 million in fiscal
    year 2007. When completed, we will have replaced the oldest AFMS
    hospital in the United States; and we will provide $4 million annual
    savings to the Military Health System. But what is important to
    understand is that the specialists at MacDill will actually perform
    their inpatient work at the civilian medical center in Tampa.
        As part of the recent Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process,
    DOD will operate on a more rational, modernized footprint. Through the
    combination of facilities, the closure of small hospitals, and the
    combination of similar educational and research activities, we will be
    able to take advantage of new partnerships, both inter-service and with
    our civilian and Department of Veterans Affairs partners. These BRAC
    decisions support strategies of reducing excess capacity and locating
    military personnel in activities where the workload is more diverse,
    providing them with enhanced opportunities to maintain their medical
    currency to meet combatant commander requirements. I strongly support
    the BRAC law and am fully committed to its complete implementation. It
    is right for military medicine and, as importantly, it is right for our
    patients and our staff.
        We strive every day to ensure that the Military Health System is
    the best health care system for the dedicated men and women in uniform
    who sacrifice so much.

                                    TRICARE

        Across the services, we believe TRICARE is great health benefit and
    a superior program that supports the warfighter and the family at home.
    On behalf of the Department, General Granger, deputy director and
    program executive officer of the TRICARE Management Activity says, ``We
    know we have a nation that is at war, and were going to continue to
    make sure that we maintain those superb benefits that we need to
    support this long and drawn out global war on terrorism.''
        The military health benefit has gained critical attention recently
    due to the Department's proposed initiative to sustain this important
    benefit for the future. Understand that we honor the service and
    sacrifice of our active duty members and retirees as well as their
    families. Because of their service and sacrifice the Department
    continually strives to provide a truly outstanding health benefit for
    them.
        We must sustain this health benefit into the future; to do so, we
    have implemented management actions over the past few years and these
    continue. However, and this is critically important, these actions
    alone will not stem the rising costs of the military health benefit.
    Costs have doubled in five years from $19 billion in fiscal year 2001
    to $38 billion in fiscal year 2006. Our analysts project these costs
    will reach $64 billion by 2015, over 12 percent of the Department's
    budget (vs. 4.5 percent in 1990).
        Several factors contribute to this cost spiral: expansion of
    benefits, increased beneficiary usage, especially among retirees,
    healthcare inflation, and no increase in beneficiary cost-sharing since
    the TRICARE program began eleven years ago.
        Our proposals to manage cost growth and sustain this valuable
    benefit encourage beneficiaries to elect medically appropriate cost-
    effective healthcare options. Significantly, our proposals, which seek
    to, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff put it, ``re-norm''
    contributions to approach those when TRICARE was established in 1995,
    will continue the high level of access to care and quality enjoyed by
    our beneficiaries today. We are also recognizing differences in cost-
    sharing to be expected from retired officers versus enlisted personnel.
        We fully support these proposed changes and believe together we
    will be able to sustain this great health benefit for the men and women
    of our Armed Forces. It is critically important to place the health
    benefit program on a sound fiscal foundation for the long term.
        In so doing, together, we will also sustain the vital needs of the
    military to recruit, train, equip and protect our Service members who
    daily support our National Security responsibilities throughout the
    world, and keep our nation strong.

                                    SUMMARY

        As we enter the fifth year of the Global War on Terrorism, we are
    engaged in combat and in humanitarian operations overseas and at home.
    From the Gulf of Mexico to the Persian Gulf, well-trained, dedicated,
    and compassionate medics from every service are making a difference in
    the lives of thousands of warriors and civilians. This blending of
    increasingly interoperable talent and equipment has made the miracles
    of today's battlefield medicine possible.
        In conclusion, a recent comment by General Moseley, perfectly
    describes our future and the challenges we face. ``When someone asks
    you what the Air Force will be doing in the future, tell them this: We
    will do what we have always done. We will stand on the shoulders of
    giants. We will take care of each other and every member of this great
    fighting force. We will innovate. And . . . we will fly . . . we will
    fight . . . and we will win.''

        Senator Stevens. Thank you all very much.
        You know, as we go to visit the hospitals at Walter Reed or
    Bethesda, we note the extremely high morale of your forces in
    the medical-care area. It's just astounding, and it's reflected
    in the type of care that these wounded service people are
    getting, and their attitudes. I have said before--I think
    Senator Inouye has experienced it, too--I have yet to talk to
    one of those wounded people that didn't ask me to sort of bend
    down and listen to them. And the comment's been, ``They're
    treating me fine, but when can I get back to my unit?'' The
    morale of this generation is just staggering for us. So, we
    thank you all for your service and what you're doing.
        We are a little worried. For instance, I am worried, when I
    hear that the health professional scholarship program (HPSP)--
    that the Army and Navy were unable to fill the slots that were
    allocated to young people who are seeking those scholarships.
    There weren't enough seeking the scholarships. What's the
    reason for that? Is there not enough publicity or lack of
    interest of the new--coming generation in such education? What
    do you think, Admiral?
        Admiral Arthur. Well, I think there is a combination of
    factors. Certainly, there is less interest in military service.
    And a lot of those people coming into medical schools don't
    know about the health professional scholarship program. And I
    think it would behoove us to do a better job of publicizing the
    scholarship, but also publicizing the kind of experience that
    they get in the military health system. If they knew that we
    never asked any of our patients how sick they can afford to be,
    I think that would change their opinion of whether to practice
    medicine in the military. If they knew that all of our patients
    are patriots, and they're all insured, and we don't have to
    worry about those kinds of issues, it would change their
    opinion. I think if they were given an opportunity to come into
    any of the services hospitals and see the camaraderie, the
    morale, and the quality of care that's given, they would be
    more apt to come in.
        What we have done is work with our recruiting command, and
    we're now going to have physicians recruiting physicians,
    nurses recruiting nurses, instead of leaving that to the
    recruiting professionals. I think it's much better to have a
    young physician or a young nurse recruiting people who would
    want to come into the profession. We will select people who
    have been out in the operational theater, who have had some
    experience in the Navy, either in the Navy or the Marine Corps,
    and can tell the young people in medical school that this is a
    truly rich, professional atmosphere, as well as one that has
    other elements of service that are not found in the civilian
    sector. We're also increasing the amount of pay that we will
    give them. And you know that Senator Mikulski has supported
    legislation that has given us the ability to do health
    professions loan repayments. And we are doing that for nurses,
    podiatrists, psychologists, and other health professionals.
        So, I think it's going to get better. We are also going to
    be sending more physicians to meetings where part of their
    meeting obligation is not just to attend and get education, but
    also to be part of the recruiting booth, and to just be there
    to talk with people who would come up and ask them about their
    professions.
        Senator Stevens. Do you have any comment about that,
    General Kiley?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir. Yes, Senator. I actually agree
    completely with Admiral Arthur. I'd say there are some other
    forces at work in our schools--medical and dental schools. I
    think there are other opportunities for students to get
    scholarships and to have stipends. The military is not the only
    way that students get through school.
        I think there is a perception that they get of the
    military, particularly military medicine, based on what they
    see on the television and hear in the reports. And, as Admiral
    Arthur articulated, they don't understand the full depth and
    breadth of opportunities for all doctors, dentists, nurses,
    physicians assistants (PAs). We're doing exactly the same thing
    as the Navy. We recognize this. Army has been recruiting HPSP
    through recruiting command, but it's much more effective to
    have doctors recruiting doctors and nurses recruiting nurses.
        We've developed a new DVD. I've personally communicated
    with the deans of every medical school and osteopathy school in
    the Nation and asked for access, and have been very pleasantly
    surprised and pleased with the very positive responses. We've
    actually identified a group of physicians who have stepped up
    and said, ``I'd like to help with recruiting.'' Just like with
    the Navy, we're sending them to professional conferences, the
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists meets next
    week, and we're going to have a booth there, with doctors in
    uniform, to talk to people that might be interested in it.
        And, of course, it's not just about the students, it's
    about their parents, it's about spouses, and the perceptions.
        So, I think we're paying a lot more attention than we were.
    I am concerned that we've--we have fallen short with dental and
    medical HPSP. We may not see the impact of that for another 4
    to 7 years down the road, but we're getting very aggressive, in
    terms of offering these scholarships, both for the Active and
    Reserve. And I think we'll see that turn around. And I--we've
    had some very good data and information on retention that goes
    with this--with the sessions. Started a new process where we
    look at our doctors who were finishing their obligation in
    2005, at the end of the fiscal year. And we looked at what they
    did. There were about 283, I think is the number.
        My fear was, 15 to 20 percent of them would sign up for
    further obligation, either through training or bonuses. Close
    to 55 percent signed up for more obligation, which is very
    heartening. And we're going to do this for our nurses and
    dental officers, so that we have the data to track this in the
    Active. Our Reserve forces are more of a concern for us, and
    we're getting more aggressive with recruiting in the Reserve
    forces, also.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. We'd be pleased to work with
    the Ad Council with your services to try to get them to
    emphasize the availability of these scholarships and advantages
    to young high school graduates and to college students.
        General Taylor, you remarked about your service's care,
    particularly the critical care in the evacuation process. Are
    you concerned about the level of funding that you have
    available for 2007 as we continue this process now?
        General Taylor. I think the President's budget allocates
    money to the direct-care system that appears to be adequate for
    fiscal year 2007 to cover our needs for peacetime work, as well
    as what's in the supplemental request, to cover the warfighting
    request. I think we have the right staff right now. We have
    some areas of shortage, in terms of personnel; less so in the
    warfighting specialties, except in the nursing area. And I
    think General Rank will talk about that. The budget for 2007,
    appears to be a well-balanced budget for the direct-care
    system.
        Senator Stevens. Well, staff tells me that, overall, you've
    got a 10-year low in retention of professionals in the Air
    Force. Do you have any suggestions what we might be able to do
    to help you on that?
        General Taylor. Sir, I think there are a couple of things
    that we've been working with the staffs, in terms of changing
    the environment of care. And one of the things I've talked
    about is making the practice attractive for folks to stay in.
    And part of that is making sure that we have facilities and
    equipment and supplies and a range of practice that appears
    adequate for them.
        In terms of pay and fees and those sort of things, we need
    to make sure that we're exploiting, as best we can, all of the
    availability of pay options and loan repayments for our folks,
    for them to be able to stay in longer.
        The near-term problem we have is in recruiting
    replacements. We filled our health professions scholarship
    program last year, plus 21; we appear to be filling the program
    fine today. We've been working with the Uniformed Services
    University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) to expand their
    medical student throughput. The problem with all of this is,
    those pay off 8 to 10 years in the future.
        In the near term, we have holes in certain specialty types
    across physicians and dentists and nurses and other types that
    we need to make sure we have the right authorities that we can
    attract people into the system. One of our toughest problems is
    to get people into the system, particularly the fully trained
    providers.
        Senator Stevens. I don't have much time----
        Admiral Arthur. With regard to----
        Senator Stevens. Pardon me.
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. I don't have much time left, but I've been
    concerned about the articles and the conversations I've had
    about the monitoring and treatment of those who are at risk for
    post-traumatic stress disorder. And I wonder if we're doing
    enough to interview and to deal with military people as they
    come out of the theater immediately. It seems that the longer
    that that is ignored, the more it increases. Am I wrong?
    Admiral Arthur?
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, sir. We're doing quite a bit. We are
    embedding psychologists and other healthcare professionals into
    the units so that they don't have to go somewhere else to get
    the counseling or to get some kind of a social service referral
    service. So, the counselors and trained professionals are in
    the units. And as they come back, they work with them. They
    work with them, both in the combat theater, in transit, and
    when they get back home.
        It is really the Reserve component and those who get out of
    the military right after they come back from combat with which
    I am most concerned. And we've worked with the Veterans
    Administration (VA) and extended the TRICARE benefits to be
    able to take care of them.
        Now, these signs are very subtle. And so, we want to be
    sure that we detect them in the units and have people there who
    can talk with them and get to know the individuals. I think
    that's the best way to do it. It's worse if you let it go, and
    you see it in the families or in the employment venue. I think
    we've got a lot of energy into this, because we realize that
    everyone who goes into combat is significantly affected by it.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        I'd like to continue the line of questioning. Whenever I've
    had the pleasure of visiting troops on a carrier or on an
    airbase or an Army training post, I always set aside an hour to
    meet with enlisted personnel without the presence of officers.
    And it never fails, the first subject brought up is healthcare,
    about their dependents.
        Using that as a background, I've been advised that the Army
    is below its required end strength. For example, psychologists
    are staffed at 88 percent of its required end strength; family
    practice physicians, 81 percent; surgeons, at 65 percent;
    emergency medicine specialists, 70 percent; pediatricians, 65
    percent; social workers, 75 percent. And these are just some of
    the shortages.
        When one considers that we've been operating with these
    shortages, and yet we are able to maintain the morale we have,
    as our chairman described, and the efficiency and the quality
    of service, your effort is almost heroic, but you can't keep it
    up that way. Now, what is the Army going to do to address this
    retention and recruiting problem?
        General Kiley. Senator, as you know, that's a critical
    question for us. You've articulated some of the very worst
    data. I've alluded to some of the things we've started, with
    our peer-to-peer program, where we're going out to talk to
    pediatricians, to talk to psychologists, to talk to
    neurosurgeons, to talk to general surgeons, about service in
    the Army. In some cases, for example, with certified nurse
    anesthetists, we were able to begin to give them a retention
    bonus, which has helped. And we have just recently been
    approved, although we haven't funded, a retention bonus for our
    physicians assistants, who are critical providers, particularly
    on the battlefield.
        We've been able to maintain a high quality of healthcare
    for our soldiers and their families, and particularly manage
    casualty receiving and, frankly, mobilization and deployment,
    because our commanders have had the support of Congress and the
    support of the Department in allowing the local commander to
    not only use uniformed providers, but to have the flexibility
    to hire civilian and contract providers. It's a more expensive
    way to do business, in some respects, but it does help us in
    areas where we've got a fairly robust healthcare system.
        I'm confident that with some of the scholarship and loan
    repayment programs that we've got in place, plus the focus that
    we've been placing, and not only for physicians, but for
    doctors, and particularly for the nurse corps, led by General
    Pollock, I think we're going to turn this thing around. I don't
    know that I'm going to have absolutely as many neurosurgeons as
    I need.
        I think we've also got to address retention, because the
    more physicians and others that we can retain--and, frankly,
    many of these providers have articulated that their service in
    combat--in the combat zone, and their service in caring for
    soldiers, and the families of soldiers that have been in
    combat, has actually given them a new vision as to why they're
    in military medicine. It really comes home to them. And, as I
    alluded to, when I thought we were only going to retain 15 to
    20 percent of our physicians in fiscal year 2005, we retained
    over 50 percent.
        I think we're--I'd like to think we're at a nadir in some
    of these issues. But I think we need to continue to work at
    looking again at bonus levels. We've just now started to feel
    the impact of the increased bonuses that you all provided us in
    the 2003-2004 timeframe. So, I think we probably--with God's
    help, we'll be back here next year telling you that we've
    started to turn this around.
        Senator Inouye. Well, is there anything we can do, here? Is
    it money?
        General Kiley. Sir, I don't--from my perspective, I don't
    think it's money. I think we've got a package of bonuses and
    opportunities for loan repayment. We've just started some of
    these new things in the last 3 to 4 months. I, frankly, have,
    in the future, a couple of other strategies, if these don't
    work. I might consider taking Army Medical Department (AMEDD)
    recruiting and asking the chief to pass that back to me, as the
    surgeon general, where it was back in the 1970s and 1980s,
    before U.S. Army Recruiting Command did it. But I think right
    now our best strategy is to work with them. And, frankly,
    recruiting command has been absolutely superb, even from a
    financial perspective, in assisting us in our efforts to get to
    medical schools, to get doctors to medical schools, nurses to
    nursing schools. I think General Pollock may talk to you a
    little bit about her efforts coming up this weekend.
        So, for right now, the Congress has been so good to us on
    these that I'm not ready to come back and ask. I do think
    there's a financial issue. I mean, dentists are living in
    private practice, fairly robust salaries. We compete with that.
    Despite the fact that physicians in some areas of the country
    are working hard, or having trouble with--or issues with
    medical malpractice premiums, et cetera, there's a perception
    in some that, you know, it's better on the outside. I think we
    have shifted that a little bit with the care that our providers
    are providing to injured soldiers and their families. So, I
    think we're on the cusp of that right now. I think how things
    go in current operations over the next 12 to 18 months may also
    give us an indicator of our retention.
        Senator Inouye. Admiral, in fiscal year 2005 the Navy was
    required to convert 1,772 medical professionals from military
    to civilian.
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inouye. And you are 74 percent successful. Now,
    you're discussing the possibility of converting 10,000 medical
    professionals into civilians?
        Admiral Arthur. Well, sir, actually, we were asked to
    convert those 1,700. We have decided only to convert 1,100 of
    those. And the balance are people that we've saved as we
    consolidated some functions, some medical and dental functions.
    So, the 74 percent is actually 74 percent of 1,100. We've found
    it very challenging to get the quality of healthcare
    professional--whether it's doctor, nurse, physician assistant,
    or podiatrist, social worker--that would meet the Navy's high
    standards for the salary that we're able to pay. So, we're
    finding it a challenge, especially in some isolated locations,
    to find healthcare providers who will come and work there full
    time. We can get locum tenens, people who come in for 2 weeks
    or 1 month at a time, but that's not the kind of continuity
    that we really want for our beneficiaries.
        The additional conversions are conversations that we're
    having within the Pentagon as part of the Quadrennial Defense
    Review and its derivative, the Medical Readiness Requirements
    Review. And we're looking at the requirements for all kinds of
    combat service support, stability operations, humanitarian
    assistance, the full spectrum of military mission. There is
    thought that we should only staff for the combat casualty care
    portion of that, and to staff many of our overseas and isolated
    continental U.S. facilities with civilians, rather than U.S.
    military.
        We are participating in those discussions, and I think that
    the number will be far less than 10,000, but it will still
    present a significant challenge to us, especially overseas,
    where the education may be good, but the interface with our
    American servicemembers may not be the best. And we have
    promised American-standard care for all of our soldiers,
    sailors, airmen, and marines, wherever they are, overseas or in
    the continental United States.
        Senator Inouye. General, you have served us well, and
    you're just about ready to retire. And so, maybe you can speak
    with a little more objectivity. There's been a lot of
    discussion on a joint medical service command. What do you
    think about that?
        General Taylor. This is a work in progress within the
    Department to look at the joint activities. If you look at a
    marine who goes down in Fallujah, he can arrive in Bethesda 36
    to 48 hours later, going through eight care teams, pretty
    remarkable bit of work, with a high survival rate. We focus on
    that. We also focus on the unique missions that each of the
    services have.
        So, as we look to build some sort of joint or unified
    command, we have to be very careful that we retain not only the
    capability to make joint activities, like moving that marine
    from Fallujah to Bethesda, work well, but also the unique
    missions that the services have.
        So, I think it's a work in progress. The Department's
    looking at various options in a more jointly run medical set of
    services. And I think we need to let that play out. The Air
    Force Chief of Staff's position on that has been, ``Let us see
    what the alternatives are, and see what the impact is,''
    particularly on the Air Force. As I said, we don't run an Air
    Force medical command. We run a decentralized system. And so,
    it's a much larger leap for us to move to some sort of unified
    command than it would be for the other services.
        Senator Inouye. I've got 7 seconds. Do you agree that it
    should be a joint command?
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, sir. I think there's great advantage
    to doing single common training, acquisition of supplies and
    equipment, have a single mission, singly financed, singly
    measured, but I also agree with General Taylor that every
    service has specific missions--care in the air; we have
    submarine medicine; the Army has other types of medical support
    to their combat forces. And we need to ensure that we meet the
    service's needs. And this is not to meet the medical system's
    needs, but to meet the service's needs for combat service
    support.
        General Kiley. Yes, sir. We have ``care in the dirt.'' They
    have ``care in the air.'' We have ``care in the dirt''--I very
    strongly support unified medical command.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, good morning, Admiral, Generals.
        First of all, know that it's really an honor to be the
    Senator from Maryland, because we, in many ways, feel we're the
    home of military medicine, from the Bethesda Naval Hospital, to
    having the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
    (USUHS), to having Fort Detrick, and even the hospital ship
    Comfort is in our State.
        I also just want to say to you, and to our nurse corps
    leadership and to all of the people who serve, just how proud
    we are of you. What you all are sustaining is enormous, and in
    the midst of a war. Amidst these tremendous battlefield
    casualties and taking care of dependents, along comes something
    called Katrina that you had to respond to, along comes a
    pandemic that we have to be getting ready for. And I know
    you're planning for that. So, we just want you to know, we're
    very proud of you. And, as my two colleagues have said, you
    can't talk to a soldier that's come back who just wasn't proud
    to serve his country, but expresses the gratitude to the
    medical care, even for the infections. You know, we hear about
    the battlefield trauma, but it's the urinary tract infection
    that the young female soldier has, and it's the fungus
    infection, the foot infection that the young marine or
    infantryman has. So, it's all that usual and customary. So,
    we're just very impressed.
        Let me go to the battlefield aspects of medicine, just for
    a minute, and to General Taylor. I understand that these
    evacuations, the golden hour from battlefield to Walter Reed,
    are an amazing and stunning accomplishment with, obviously,
    lower morbidity and mortality. Can you sustain that on the
    basis of the National Guard and Reserve? Because I understand
    that the majority of how that occurs comes from the National
    Guard and the Reserve. They provide the air infrastructure, and
    then you provide the staff, shall we say, in the hospital room
    in the sky. Am I correct in that?
        General Taylor. It's a little bit of both. We have teams
    that are in the air, in the back of the airplane, and they are
    a mixture of Guard and Reserve and Active. The most impressive
    part is, by and large, we do this with volunteers. The people
    that are in the air--the thousands of men and women that are in
    the aeromedical evacuation community, both Active, Guard, and
    Reserves, are a highly motivated, well-trained group with a
    fairly substantial depth, because we had to plan to move as
    many as 300 or 400 casualties a day, in the opening days of the
    war. And so, moving 10s and 20s a day is well within the realm
    of our aeromedical evacuation capability.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, but are you able to sustain this?
        General Taylor. Yes, ma'am. We're doing it with volunteers
    today, and very little mobilization, and we see that we're able
    to do that for the foreseeable future.
        If I could just add one thing to your list of----
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        General Taylor. In addition to Bethesda Naval Hospital and
    other places, I'm also very proud of the Baltimore Shock Trauma
    Center. As you know, we have military surgeons and nurses and
    technicians working in the Baltimore Shock Trauma Center every
    day. We rotate surgeons and nurses and technicians and other
    folks through there for training, and large numbers of people
    that you see working in the air or on the ground in Balad are
    graduates, recent graduates, of the shock trauma orientation
    course, where they go and take care of people.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, well, in my time, in 10 minutes----
        General Taylor. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. I'm aware of that.
        General Taylor. I just wanted to add one more comment.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, I'm aware of that. And we're proud
    of that--which takes me to the recruitment issue. I'll be
    talking a lot with the nurse corps about their particular
    issues, but when we talk about the medical corps and the
    variety of very sophisticated specialties, General, are you
    looking at how you can get to the medical students while
    they're medical students with these kinds of partnerships
    between military medicine and perhaps a local civilian medical
    school? In other words, where you have a big military presence,
    like we have in Maryland--it could be Oklahoma, it could be
    South Carolina--where there you are, there's the military, and
    there's the civilian medical system, where there is exposure, a
    lot of these kids don't know about the military. Their fathers
    don't know about the military, or their moms, because, again,
    we don't have a draft. They just don't know. And decisions are
    made at the medical student level, not where they're going to
    do their residency and find it enormously exciting to be, for
    example, what General Taylor talked about.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am. We are--we're very interested.
    In fact, part of this thrust for the digital video disc (DVD),
    which we've developed, which is part of a presentation by Army
    physicians who go to medical schools, to the large classes,
    particularly freshman and sophomore, and show them the DVD and
    give them an opportunity to talk about all the options,
    possibilities, either research, clinical care, academics and
    teaching, and then operational medicine. What we've changed, in
    an effort to address your concern, is to focus recruiting
    efforts and the tools that we use, focusing them on physicians,
    specifically. I think, in the past, one of our shortfalls has
    been, we've had this Army Medical Department recruiting effort,
    writ large. And if you're a doctor, you don't see enough in
    there to identify with. If you're a nurse, you don't see enough
    in there to identify, to help you understand. So, that's one
    thing.
        We've also began to look at pre-med classes, the
    universities where the medical students are, before they go to
    medical school, because we'd like to get to them while they're
    still juniors and seniors in college, thinking about going to
    medical school.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, is one of these obstacles to
    recruitment the money? Or is it the lack of knowledge and
    awareness about these career opportunities?
        General Kiley. Off the top of my head, ma'am, I think the
    answer would be captured in an article that was in Military
    Medicine a few years ago, ``Canvassing Medical Students in
    Medical School: Don't Know, Don't Care.'' I'm not so sure they
    don't care anymore, because of our global war on terror
    efforts, but they still don't know. I think it's less about
    that than it is about money. There are, as I alluded to a
    little bit earlier--as I understand it, there are potentially
    other competing interests for repaying loans and giving
    individual stipends in medical school. I think, mostly, it's
    education. And, frankly, we've got a tremendous cadre of young
    enlisted recruiters. But when the doctor--when a medical
    student wants to know, you know, can they be a pediatrician, or
    are they going to have to be a this----
        Senator Mikulski. They don't have the answers. Well, this
    is why I think, through, again, the pre-med level is excellent,
    but I think it requires creative outreach. And I think, you're
    exactly right, where you think you're going to be is who you
    want to talk to----
        General Kiley. Right.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Whether it's in allied
    health, not only are we going to talk about nurses, I know
    there is a shortage of pharmacists, x-ray technicians. We could
    go the cadre, because of what we see in the civilian
    population. So, we want to be able to help you be able to do
    that. So, that's one thing.
        General Kiley. Right.
        Senator Mikulski. Second thing is, while we're talking
    about the battlefield, I'm also concerned about some other
    threats, like the Katrina-like natural disaster, to be ready in
    our own country, should there be a predatory attack and local
    government collapses, or if a pandemic hits and your doctors
    and your nurses and your own institutions could go down, just
    like in Katrina, where you had nurses and doctors carrying
    people eight flights of stairs to get them out. What is the
    thought and the planning there? And are we stretched so thin
    now that we would have limited resources to deal with a
    catastrophe within the homeland, regardless of whether it's
    natural or predatory? For any of our panelists.
        General Taylor. I'll be glad to--I'll say a few things, and
    then maybe Kevin can kick in afterward.
        The medical services within the Air National Guard have
    been tasked by General Blum to begin moving toward a homeland
    security defense. So, they are organizing their capabilities,
    along with the FEMA regions. They're building response
    capabilities, and they're organizing and practicing for a
    national disaster, not only because the Guard's immediately
    available, but with State-to-State agreements, there is also
    rapidly available without having to wait for the Do loop
    through the Federal Government.
        And so, I'm very excited about that. There was a recent
    exercise last week, called Coyote Express, in Scottsdale,
    Arizona, where they practiced. How would you respond to a major
    casualty event? I think you have it right, that people think
    about first responders in any sort of national disaster,
    without thinking about----
        Senator Mikulski. They, themselves----
        General Taylor [continuing]. First----
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Could go down.
        General Taylor [continuing]. The first receivers. Is there
    going----
        Senator Mikulski. What about the----
        General Taylor [continuing]. To be anybody at the end of
    the----
        Senator Mikulski. What about the pandemic? My time is----
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am. Actually, U.S. Army Medical
    Command just finished a three-part CPX/headquarters exercise
    with all of my regional commands, walking through a what-if
    scenario. If the Army was asked, in this case, to help the
    local civilian communities--you've identified an area that
    concerns us. I mean, it has the potential to be a very
    significant impact on the Nation. I think all three services
    are concerned about that. I think we would be simply waiting
    for direction from the Department to begin to execute that. And
    I know that my commanders, at places from Fort Lewis to Walter
    Reed, are talking with----
        Senator Mikulski. You're waiting for the direction from
    who, General?
        General Kiley. Well, I mean, in the event of a pandemic,
    we--you know, we would--we would expect the Department or the
    President to give us direction to begin to execute mission
    support outside the fences of our camps, posts, and stations.
    What we're not waiting for is getting to know who in the
    communities, both medical and civilian leadership in the
    communities, has accountability and responsibility in a
    Seattle/Tacoma or in Fairfax, Virginia, as it relates to how a
    community would react to and support the medical demands for a
    pandemic in an area. And they would be very significant. And
    our analysis, as we've worked our way through this, the last
    couple of months, is, it would be a very significant problem,
    everything from the health of our providers to the logistics of
    taking care of a community.
        So, we share your concern. We are training now, as I
    guess----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, again, I think this is just
    something that we'll be talking about, because it really has a
    real national security impact. In the event of an emergency
    like a pandemic, it's very likely that the very people who have
    to treat could, themselves, be sick, in the local community.
    The second thing is, the massive treatment, the massive
    inoculation, and then the need to maintain civil order and
    possibly even a quarantine, and the only place that we can turn
    to with the backup reserves, even under the doctrine of mutual
    aid with first responders, is our United States military. And
    you're stretched--and you are--you're doing a fantastic job,
    but I believe you're stretched. And so----
        General Kiley. I----
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. We'll look forward to
    further discussion on this.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        General Kiley. We agree with you.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much.
        We thank you, General Taylor, for your service, and wish
    you well.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, I wanted to say that, too.
        Senator Stevens. Admiral, I'm interested in your answers to
    Senator Inouye's question about integration. I think we'd be
    very pleased to see if some of you would take the initiative to
    get your groups together and some of your predecessors, see if
    we could have a meeting with the eight Members of Congress who
    really lead the four defense committees. It may be time for a
    defense military corps with some type of training that would
    be--would specialize in the necessities for the marines, the
    Army, the Air Force, the Navy, whatever it might be. But, very
    clearly, it appears that the integration of the medical
    services could have a substantial benefit, and could raise the
    level of awareness of the corps and what it means to the
    country. So, I think that the two of us would be very pleased
    to work with you on that, if--when some of these current
    travails are over here, sometime this fall.
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. We'll give you a call.
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Let me thank you all for your service,
    and----
        Senator Inouye. May I also----
        Senator Stevens. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Inouye. Before we dismiss the panel, I just wanted
    to make a footnote. According to my studies, a military
    radiologist receives $150,000 a year. One on the outside, a
    civilian radiologist, with similar skills and experience, would
    get at least $450,000.
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inouye. You've got a job ahead of you.
        Admiral Arthur. And if we asked them to work side by side
    in military/civilian conversion, it's an incredibly
    demoralizing situation. When one works nights, weekends, and
    deploys, and the other does not, but gets three times the
    salary--yes, sir.
        Senator Inouye. I hope Americans realize the bargain
    they're getting on our military personnel.
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, sir.
        General Kiley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Some of my former assistants here in town
    are making $1 million right now. We don't want to do some
    comparisons.
        Thank you all very much for your service.
        Senator Stevens. We look forward to working with you on
    this subject. We'll turn to the next panel.
        We're going to hear now from the chiefs of the service
    nursing corps. This subcommittee has always believed in the
    value of the nursing corps. It is vital to the success of our
    military medical system, and absolutely necessary in periods
    such as we're going through right now.
        We want to thank all of you involved in the leadership of
    the nursing corps for your service, and look forward to your
    statement of your accomplishments and the challenges you face.
    We will be hearing today now from General Gale Pollock, the
    Chief of the Army Nursing Corps; Admiral Christine Bruzek-
    Kohler of the Navy Nurse Corps; and General Melissa Rank, the
    Assistant Surgeon General for Nursing Services for the Air
    Force.
        We welcome you here, want to hear your testimony, and we do
    have some question.
        I turn to my friend, Senator Inouye, to see if he has any
    opening comment.
        Senator Inouye. Well, I'd like to join you in welcoming
    these chiefs, but I'd also like to congratulate General
    Pollock. She did a great job at Tripler. And now you're going
    to be chief of staff of the Army Medical Command. That's quite
    an accomplishment. Is this the first time a lady has been in
    charge?
        General Pollock. Yes, sir. And the actual job title is--
    I'll be the deputy surgeon general, sir, not the chief of
    staff.
        Senator Inouye. That means we're ready for three stars now.
        General Pollock. I'm not sure the rest of the world's ready
    for that, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Mikulski, do you have any open
    comment for the nurses?
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we're just glad to see you. You
    know, in every war that America's fought, you've been there, in
    one way or the other, and we want to make sure that we continue
    to provide that service. So, we look forward to hearing from
    you and your ideas and recommendations.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, thank you very much.
        General Pollock, we'll hear from you first.

    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL GALE POLLOCK, CHIEF, ARMY
                NURSE CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
        General Pollock. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
    it's indeed, an honor and great privilege to speak before you
    on behalf of the nearly 10,000 officers of the Army Nurse
    Corps.
        Army nurses continue making impressive contributions
    throughout the world. In addition to excellent nursing care of
    combat casualties, we've provided training for physician and
    nursing leaders in Afghanistan, served as advisors to the Iraqi
    armed forces surgeon general, and led discussions to raise the
    quality of military and civilian nursing in the Republic of
    Vietnam.
        Here at home, Army Nurse Corps officers are key to the
    medical holdover program. Soldiers report high satisfaction and
    prefer to have Army nurses manage their healthcare. I'm
    committed to developing a world-class nurse case-management
    model within the framework of the AMEDD. We expanded the scope
    of practice for operating room nurses through registered nurse
    first assist training. This change optimizes the utilization of
    surgeons, enhancing capabilities in theater and in fixed
    facilities. Psychiatric advanced-practice nurses are proven
    force multipliers. I directed that these nurses enroll in
    psychiatric nurse practitioner programs to clarify the issue of
    prescriptive authority and provide the Army Medical Department
    (U.S. Army) (AMEDD) additional flexibility to better support
    the mental health mission.
        Caring for our combat wounded is one of the most demanding
    services we provide, and we consistently do it well. However, I
    remain concerned about the toll that caring for these trauma
    patients exacts over time. The effects of post-traumatic stress
    disorder and compassion fatigue on our clinicians cannot be
    underestimated. If left unchecked, it leads to a variety of
    long-lasting personal and professional problems. It must remain
    a high-priority issue.
        We continue staffing the theater trauma system. Nursing
    documentation of serious outcomes due to hypothermia resulted
    in a major change to care on the battlefield and is saving
    lives.
        Army nurse researchers and our doctoral students focus
    their efforts on military-relevant issues. Recently they
    examined the physical effects of body armor and loadbearing
    personal protective equipment, and methods to improve walking
    performance in amputees. Due to your generous support of the
    tri-service nursing research program, there is both monetary
    and educational support for these studies which encourage
    collaboration and advance the science of nursing practice.
        The use of simulators improves the critical thinking and
    technical skills required of healthcare personnel. The Nursing
    Science Division of the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Center
    and School uses adult and pediatric simulators to augment the
    training of anesthesia students. The U.S. Army graduate program
    in anesthesia nursing is the second-ranked program in our
    Nation, but I remain concerned about the retention of our
    certified registered nurse anesthetists (CNA).
        The need for nurses outpaces the number of new graduates.
    Baccalaureate programs turn away qualified applicants each year
    due to faculty shortages. We are encouraging our retiring
    officers to select faculty positions as a second career.
        We learned from Recruiting Command that results were much
    improved when candidates spoke directly with Army nurses. In
    response, we launched the every nurse is a recruiter program.
    Now all nurses are actively engaged in identifying
    opportunities to recruit and advocate for the highest quality
    of nursing personnel.
        We've received inquiries each year from line officers
    interested in becoming Army nurses. We're developing a program
    similar to the Judge Advocate General's funded legal education
    program to allow them to complete their baccalaureate
    educations and join us.
        In all Army medical treatment facilities, we face
    significant shortages of civilian nurses, particularly in
    critical care, postoperative, perioperative, and obstetrics and
    gynecology (OB/GYN) nursing. The delay of National Student
    Personnel System (NSPS) renewed our concerns that Office of
    Personnel Management (OPM) regulations insisting that new
    college graduates begin their Government service as a GS-5
    thwarts our ability to recruit a civilian nursing workforce.
        We must be the employer of choice for all professional
    nurses. Diversified accession and retention incentives for both
    military and civilian nurses are essential. We will sustain our
    focus on readiness, clinical competency, and sound educational
    preparation to serve those who defend our Nation.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I appreciate this opportunity to highlight our
    accomplishments, and look forward to your questions.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Major General Gale S. Pollock

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it
    is indeed an honor and great privilege to speak before you on
    behalf of the nearly 10,000 officers of the Army Nurse Corps.
    Your unwavering support has enabled Army Nurses, as part of the
    larger Army Medical Department (AMEDD) team, to provide the
    highest quality care for our Soldiers and their family members.
        I regret that I was unable to be here last year. It was
    during this time that I co-hosted the 15th Annual Asia Pacific
    Military Medicine Conference in Hanoi, Vietnam as the U.S. Army
    Pacific Surgeon, the first international military conference
    held in Vietnam since the Reunification of Vietnam in the 70's.
    This forum provides an important cultural exchange for military
    medical professionals from 27 nations to develop relationships
    critical to ensuring cooperation and security in the Asia-
    Pacific region. Several Army Nurse Corps officers from Tripler
    Army Medical Center also attended, participating in a cultural
    exchange with Vietnamese military nurses. It is commonly
    asserted that the unprecedented regional cooperation and
    response to the devastating tsunami that hit in December 2004
    occurred as a result of the relationships previously built at
    these conferences.
        The Army Nurse Corps remains fully engaged in our Nation's
    defense and in support of its strategic goals. Our vision of
    advancing professional nursing and maintaining leadership in
    research, education, and the innovative delivery of healthcare
    is at the forefront of all we do. Army Nurses provide expert
    healthcare in every setting in support of the AMEDD mission and
    the military health system at home and abroad. There are
    currently almost 400 Army Nurse Corps officers from all three
    Components deployed in support of operations in 16 countries
    around the world. From April 2005 to March 2006, we deployed
    over 500 Army Nurses and mobilized an additional 779 Army
    Reserve Nurses in support of the total AMEDD mission. They
    serve in clinical and leadership roles in medical treatment
    facilities in the United States and abroad, in combat
    divisions, forward surgical teams, combat stress teams, civil
    affairs teams, combat support hospitals (CSHs), and coalition
    headquarters. Today, the 10th CSH from Fort Carson, CO; the
    47th CSH from Fort Lewis, WA; and the Army Reserve's 344th CSH
    from New York are deployed to Iraq. The 14th CSH from Fort
    Benning, GA is deployed to Afghanistan. The 21st CSH from Fort
    Hood, TX is expected to arrive in theater by early May to
    replace the 344th CSH.
        The AMEDD team provides the same outstanding care to all,
    U.S. service members, Iraqi security forces, and civilians of
    all nationalities. The statistics are astonishing. For example,
    since November, the 10th CSH has had over 3,500 emergency room
    visits. Over a quarter were multi-trauma resulting in almost
    1,900 admissions, but only one in five were U.S. forces. On the
    eve of parliamentary elections in Iraq, nurses from the 10th
    CSH helped deliver the first ``democracy baby,'' a little girl,
    by cesarean section. LTC Steven Drennan, Chief Nurse of the
    10th CSH, recounted several stories of caring for severely
    wounded Iraqi children as if they were their own. In summation,
    he said, ``Imagine one of your children in similar
    circumstances. You'd be overjoyed to know that he was cared for
    by a staff as concerned, competent, and caring as the Soldiers
    of the 10th CSH.'' This is but one unit, one example of our
    AMEDD team's consistently outstanding performance.
        In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, 97 Army Nurses deployed
    in support of relief operations. The 14th CSH and the 756th
    Medical Detachment arrived in New Orleans on September 5, 2005.
    Their initial mission was providing medical relief for those
    displaced by the storm, but after arrival it changed to
    providing care for personnel assigned to Joint Task Force (JTF)
    Katrina. Two of the Army Nurses assigned to the 14th CSH, 1LT
    Warren Gambino and 1LT Manual Galaviz, had family living in the
    New Orleans area, making the mission more personal not only for
    them, but for the entire unit as well. During the deployment,
    Lieutenant Gambino was promoted from second to first lieutenant
    in the New Orleans Convention Center. Wearing the only clothes
    they had, his family was there to witness the event. In mid-
    October, in preparation for their follow-on deployment to
    Afghanistan, the 14th CSH transferred authority to the 21st
    CSH.
        The 2005 hurricane season had a huge impact on military
    installations and personnel across the Gulf Region. Nurses and
    medics from the 4010th Field Hospital from New Orleans who were
    serving as backfill at Fort Polk lost family members, homes,
    and civilian jobs. As part of the Federal Coordinating Center
    of the National Defense Medical System, William Beaumont Army
    Medical Center received 65 evacuees from hospitals and nursing
    homes in Beaumont, TX. At Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the
    Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS)
    nurse anesthesia program welcomed Air Force Capt James Goode
    into their program. Capt Goode, a second year nurse anesthesia
    student stationed at Keesler Air Force Base, was only months
    from graduation when the storm hit and he already had orders
    for Andrews Air Force Base. We worked with the Air Force to get
    him to Walter Reed where he was able to finish his requirements
    and graduate on time.
        On October 8, 2005, a massive earthquake struck in northern
    Pakistan. The 212th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital (MASH) was
    just completing a multinational humanitarian operation in
    Angola where they treated more than 3,700 patients, performed
    191 surgeries, and completed mass casualty, humanitarian
    assistance, and national disaster response training. By October
    25th, the 160th Forward Surgical Team and the 212th MASH,
    augmented with 11 Army Nurses from the 67th CSH arrived in
    Pakistan to provide medical relief in the stricken region.
    During its four months in Pakistan, the 212th MASH, which
    included 31 Army Nurse Corps officers and 39 enlisted medics,
    treated over 20,000 outpatients and 838 inpatients, performed
    426 surgeries, and responded to 105 life-threatening
    emergencies--many of which were infants and children. Nurses
    also accompanied patients on over 250 medical evacuation
    missions. In February, the 212th, the last remaining MASH in
    the Army's inventory, turned over the hospital to the Pakistani
    government. The 212th MASH will be redesignated a combat
    support hospital in October.
        Army Nurses continue making contributions toward building
    sustainable medical infrastructure throughout the world. Army
    Nurses assigned to the 14th CSH worked with Afghan officials to
    spearhead an education outreach program with Afghan nurses. A
    team, including LTC Susan Anderson and MAJ Brian Benham,
    provided training for senior Afghan military medical leaders.
    As part of an effort to improve emergency healthcare in
    Lebanon, another team led by LTC Kimberly Armstrong conducted
    basic emergency medical technical training for members of the
    Lebanese Armed Forces. Eleven Army Reserve Nurses led by COL
    Cheryl Adams and then COL Gloria Maser were deployed to serve
    as advisors to the Iraqi Armed Forces Surgeon General. Their
    efforts resulted in a compendium of basic medical training
    materials and courses in Arabic, a standardized policy and
    procedures manual for Iraqi Army medical clinics, and a medical
    logistics distribution system. They also validated sites and
    monitored the building progress of 11 medical clinics and a
    medical supply warehouse. In addition, we sent a team of Army
    and Air Force nurses to Vietnam to exchange information about
    military and civilian nursing with representatives from the
    Republic of Vietnam.
        Since 2003, over 20,000 mobilized Army Reserve Soldiers
    have entered the Army's Medical Holdover Program with injuries
    and illness due to deployment. With so many Soldiers returning
    home from theater requiring intensive medical management, there
    is a tremendous need to assist veterans and their families as
    they navigate the healthcare system. There are currently 229
    mobilized Reserve Army Nurses assigned as case managers
    throughout the country serving at military medical treatment
    facilities, mobilization sites, and at eight regional
    Community-Based Healthcare Organizations. Reports indicated
    that case managers are effectively and efficiently coordinating
    appropriate and quality healthcare for this population of ill
    and injured Soldiers. Soldiers report high satisfaction
    regarding their case managers and prefer to have Army Nurses
    manage their healthcare. I am committed to developing a world-
    class nurse case management model within the framework of the
    AMEDD managed care system. Through the efforts of COL Rebecca
    Baker, we have established authorizations for nurse case
    managers within Army Reserve medical support units along with
    the curriculum and qualifications to ensure Reserve nurses who
    are placed in the case management positions obtain the
    necessary skills and competencies to manage the healthcare of
    medical holdover Soldiers.
        I am proud of the Army Nurses and our colleagues who have
    cared for our combat-wounded along the entire medical
    evacuation pipeline. This is some of the most demanding
    healthcare anywhere in the world and these wonderful
    professionals do it consistently well. However, I remain
    steadfast in my concern about the toll that caring for the
    traumatically wounded exacts over long periods of time. The
    effects of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on clinicians
    cannot be underestimated. If left unchecked, they can lead to a
    variety of long-lasting personal and professional problems. The
    transition to home for healthcare personnel must be as
    supportive and successful as possible. Facilities have
    established support groups to assist returning veterans during
    this critical reintegration time. They have also established
    programs specifically for clinical staff caring for the combat-
    wounded to address the issue. These are high-priority issues
    for us all. We continue searching for new ways to improve the
    mental health care we provide not only to our returning combat
    veterans, but also the clinical staff caring for them.
        Military medical ethics continues to be a subject of
    interest for Army Nurses. All professional nurses in the United
    States abide by the ANA's code of Ethics for Nurses, which
    clearly states, ``The nurse's primary commitment is to the
    health, well-being, and safety of patients across the life-span
    and in all settings in which health care needs are addressed.''
    Army Nurses everywhere provide ethical, compassionate, expert
    nursing care. They receive training in the Geneva Conventions,
    the Laws of Armed Conflict, and Army Regulations related to the
    care of detainees. I included deployment ethics in continuing
    education programs sponsored by the Army Nurse Corps.
        As the Army works to rebalance its forces, we are also
    working to adapt to the circumstances of this long global war
    on terrorism. We are rapidly applying lessons learned to ensure
    the best care is provided on the battlefield and across the
    healthcare spectrum. At the AMEDD Center and School, the
    Department of Nursing Science has incorporated those lessons
    into all courses offered to Army Nurses, LPNs, and combat
    medics. We have had a number of other successes in both ongoing
    and new initiatives that I would like to share with you.
        In wars past, nursing personnel received trauma training
    on-the-job. Today, we know that the ability to train as
    interdisciplinary teams under real-world conditions improves
    patient outcomes. The U.S. Army Trauma Training Center (ATTC)
    in association with the Ryder Trauma Center, University of
    Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital provides our forward surgical
    teams and slices of CSHs an invaluable opportunity to
    experience realistic best-practice total team trauma training
    prior to deployment. We have four Army Nurses and three LPNs on
    faculty at ATTC. This past year, they trained seven units,
    including 33 Army Nurses and 19 LPNs to provide state-of-the-
    art trauma care on the battlefield.
        In the absence of real-world training, simulators improve
    the critical thinking and technical skills required for
    healthcare personnel. Today, we are not only caring for more
    patients with lower extremity injuries, but also large numbers
    of children. To meet that demand, the AMEDD Center and School
    purchased adult lower body and pediatric simulators to augment
    the training of nurse anesthesia students learning to employ
    regional block anesthetics. They also purchased simulators that
    have true-to-life intravenous access, vital signs, and other
    capabilities to improve the training medics receive. At the
    Joint Readiness Training Center, LTC Richard Evans led the
    effort to incorporate combat trauma simulators into mission
    rehearsal exercises for CSHs. Using realistic simulators
    increases the fidelity of pre-deployment training and allows
    healthcare teams to expertly respond to a combination of live,
    virtual, and constructive scenarios over time, mirroring
    military healthcare on the battlefield.
        From the beginning of combat operations in Iraq, nurses
    transported severely wounded patients by air within theater.
    They performed superbly, but most had no training in aviation
    medicine. To address this, the U.S. Army School of Aviation
    Medicine developed the Joint Enroute Care Course to improve
    medical evacuation care, policy, and coordination. In 2005, the
    228th CSH hosted the first iteration in Iraq. Today, with over
    40 nurses from all three Services trained, there are fewer
    issues with patient transports, including accidental line
    removal and equipment malfunctions. This collaborative joint
    effort has improved patient care.
        The first year of nursing practice sets the foundation for
    a successful career. We are committed to ensuring that our
    nurses receive the training and maintain clinical competencies
    essential in all operational environments. Feedback indicated a
    need to assist our new nurses in building a firm foundation of
    clinical competency in critical wartime skills. To address this
    need, we added the Trauma Nursing Core Course (TNCC) to the
    Officer Basic Leaders Course in May 2005. Completion of TNCC
    helps develop core trauma knowledge and critical thinking
    skills while also establishing a firm foundation in the
    stabilization of trauma patients. One hundred and thirty three
    nursing officers successfully completed TNCC in December. This
    course was coordinated by MAJ Anthony Bohlin with the
    assistance of Ms. Susan Douglas of the San Antonio Chapter of
    the Emergency Nurses Association. This was the largest class
    ever to complete TNCC at one time.
        Once new nurses arrive at their first duty station, their
    initial orientation is critical to proper skill development. We
    are working towards the creation of an enhanced new graduate
    internship program. In the meantime, some facilities have re-
    looked at how they orient new graduates. An example is from
    Tripler Army Medical Center where they provide new nurses
    opportunities to develop basic competencies in the variety of
    clinical areas they will experience in a deployed environment
    rather than focusing on a single competency area.
        The Department of Nursing Science at the AMEDD Center and
    School broke ground for a new general instruction building this
    past November. The building will be named in honor of Brigadier
    General Lillian Dunlap, 14th Chief of the Army Nurse Corps,
    will house all Department of Nursing Science offices,
    classrooms, and practical exercise areas. We expect it to open
    in 2007.
        The Registered Nurse First Assist (RNFA) is a subspecialty
    of perioperative nursing offering an expanded scope of practice
    in the operating room setting. The RNFA practice model expands
    the scope of practice for perioperative RNs to function as
    first assists to the surgeons in the operating room and
    optimizes the utilization of general surgeons. It is also
    enhances the capabilities of the forward surgical team, the
    CSH, and fixed facilities. A pilot project at Fort Drum yielded
    a cost savings of $190,000 by eliminating a costly contract and
    provided Army Nurses practical experience enhancing wartime
    capability. Incorporating RNFAs into our structure also
    enhances our ability to recruit and retain perioperative
    nurses. Historically, these nurses otherwise looked for
    advanced training and education in roles unrelated to
    perioperative nursing within or outside of the Army. In concert
    with our perioperative nursing consultant, COL Linda Wanzer,
    USUHS is working to incorporate this training into the
    curriculum for perioperative clinical nurse specialists. To
    date, we have trained eight RNFAs and deployed five in support
    of contingency operations.
        Clinical competency is another key concern. We completed a
    major revision of how our officers who specialize in critical
    care, emergency, and OB/GYN nursing demonstrate clinical
    competency. Our goal is to standardize the way in which we
    confirm and maintain competency for all of our nurses. These
    revisions clarify guidance on how to achieve this and are
    particularly important for Army Reserve Nurses who may not
    practice their military clinical specialty in their civilian
    employment.
        Facilities located on installations with a large number of
    medical personnel assigned to field units are reestablishing
    programs to help them maintain clinical competency. We have
    also begun a number of initiatives in this area with our sister
    Services. William Beaumont Army Medical Center established a
    partnership with the medical clinic at Holloman Air Force Base
    to provide inpatient refresher training for its medical
    personnel. In the first iteration of a joint critical care
    nursing course at Fort Sam Houston, we trained eight Air Force
    critical care nurses. We expect five more to graduate this
    summer and hope to have five Air Force nurses in the next
    Emergency Nursing Course. During their deployment in support of
    JTF-Katrina, members of the 21st CSH completed TNCC, the Combat
    Lifesaver Course, and the Advanced Cardiac Life Support Course.
    In Afghanistan, Army Nurses spearheaded an effort that resulted
    in the 14th CSH's designation as an official provider for the
    Emergency Medical Technician-Basic (EMT-B) Refresher Course, as
    well as the Combat Medic Advanced Skills Training Course. Their
    efforts have helped dozens of combat medics deployed in support
    of Operation Enduring Freedom sustain critical skills.
        Our collaborative efforts also include our colleagues at
    the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and surrounding
    civilian facilities. Dwight David Eisehower Army Medical Center
    and the Augusta VA Medical Center established a joint training
    and staffing initiative which includes a critical care nursing
    internship program and a staffing pool. Eisenhower, as our lead
    facility in the Southeast Medical Region, also coordinated with
    Augusta's Doctors Hospital to provide burn training for
    deploying staff and those caring for wounded patients. To date,
    50 military and civilian nurses have completed this training.
        Many of our smaller facilities serve as clinical training
    sites for our enlisted medics, such as those in the surgical
    technologist program. At some of these sites, the caseload was
    too limited to provide the appropriate clinical experience for
    our Soldiers. In 2005, we closed 10 sites and shifted our
    training mission to facilities with larger volumes of diverse
    surgical cases. This improved the quality of the training
    students received and better prepared them for deployment.
        In June 2005, the family nurse practitioner (FNP) was
    approved as an authorized substitution for a family physician
    in CSHs and for physician assistants in division-level units.
    Deploying FNPs now complete advanced trauma training at the
    AMEDD Center and School to ensure they are prepared for
    deployment. We are also collecting lessons learned and actively
    working with the AMEDD Center and School and USUHS to determine
    potential opportunities for curriculum changes at each site.
        Psychiatric advanced practice nurses are proven force
    multipliers as authorized substitutions for psychologists on
    combat stress teams. I am directing officers pursuing graduate
    education in psychiatric nursing to enroll in psychiatric nurse
    practitioner (PNP) programs to clarify the issue of
    prescriptive authority and provide the AMEDD additional
    flexibility to better support the mental health mission.
        Army public health nurses are perfectly suited to meet
    essential public health demands at home and abroad. As experts
    in wellness promotion and in building healthy communities, they
    provide valuable services in a deployed environment and play a
    key role in the pre- and post-deployment health assessment
    process. In 2005, we redirected our services toward public
    health in response to the needs of Soldiers and their families.
    We realigned the practice of our public health nurses and
    broadened their roles to include homeland defense,
    epidemiology, occupational health, and support for national
    disasters and detainee operations. These changes better
    position us to meet public health demands in support of our
    Nation's defense.
        The AMEDD's Theater Trauma System Initiative standardizes
    treatment, evaluates processes, and provides training for
    clinicians to improve patient survivability in theater. As part
    of this system, the Joint Theater Trauma Registry
    systematically collects, stores, and analyzes medical data. We
    have deployed 12 Army Nurses since 2004 in support of this
    initiative. The work they do directly improves patient
    outcomes. For instance, the rate of hypothermia and resulting
    mortality decreased thanks to the education these nurses
    provided to first responders and the hypothermia prevention
    kits they distributed.
        Evidenced-based nursing is the process by which nurses
    utilize research to make clinical decisions and provide state-
    of-the-art patient care. Army Nurse researchers, in
    collaboration with their Navy and Air Force colleagues, are
    heavily vested in the TriService Nursing Research Programs'
    Center of Excellence in Evidenced-Based Nursing Practice.
    Projects to bring research findings to the bedside are underway
    at Walter Reed, Brooke, Madigan, and Tripler Army Medical
    Centers. These projects are part of a larger effort to improve
    patient outcomes and reduce costs by standardizing care. They
    teach nurses how to critique research and incorporate the
    relevant findings into patient care. Nurses involved in these
    projects increase their knowledge, become motivated to further
    their education, and are becoming involved in research
    projects, much earlier in their careers.
        Army Nurse Researchers and our doctoral students focus
    their efforts on military relevant issues. They are conducting
    a number of studies that foster excellence and improve the
    nursing care we provide. They are researching issues including
    recruit health; clinical knowledge development; the provision
    of care for the traumatically injured; objectively measuring
    nursing workload; and the impact of deployments on service
    members and their families. At USUHS, COL Richard Riccairdi is
    completing his doctoral dissertation on mitigating the physical
    effects of body armor and other load-bearing personal
    protective equipment and LTC Lisa Latendresse is examining how
    to improve gait and walking performance in amputees.
        The Military Nursing Outcomes Database (MilNOD) program of
    research provides military nurse managers the ability to
    analyze the effects of staffing patterns on patient safety and
    outcomes to improve all levels of nursing care. This work
    builds upon that done by the California Nursing Outcomes
    Coalition and the Veteran's Administration. Using this
    framework, nurse managers at the 14 military sites are
    analyzing workload and staffing data as it relates to patient
    events and make more informed management decisions. Through
    your generous support of the TriService Nursing Research
    Program, there is both monetary and educational support for
    these studies, which encourage collaboration and advance the
    science of nursing practice. On behalf of the Army Nurse Corps
    and the patients whom we serve, thank you.
        The U.S. Army Graduate Program in Anesthesia Nursing once
    again ranks second in the nation. We are equally proud of the
    USUHS Registered Nurse Anesthesia Program. Our students are
    actively involved in research studying airway management,
    hypothermia, herbal remedies, and nurse retention, thus
    furthering the science of nursing. At Walter Reed, anesthesia
    students have the additional opportunity to deploy on a two-
    week humanitarian mission with experienced faculty to obtain
    field anesthesia experience. Our students are consistently
    battle ready upon graduation, beginning with board
    certification. We are proud to say that again this year they
    had a 100 percent pass rate. Both anesthesia programs produce
    exceptional graduates who serve our Army and sister Services
    extremely well.
        We acknowledge and appreciate the faculty and staff of the
    USUHS Graduate School of Nursing for all they do to prepare
    advanced practice nurses to serve America's Army. They train
    advanced practice nurses in a multidisciplinary military-unique
    curriculum that is especially relevant given the current
    operational environment. Our students are actively engaged in
    research and the dissemination of nursing knowledge through the
    publication of journal articles, scientific posters, and
    national presentations. Of special note, I wish to acknowledge
    our perioperative clinical nurse specialist students for their
    contributions to a national white paper on medication errors.
        Despite an upswing in enrollments in baccalaureate nursing
    programs for the fifth straight year, the need for nurses
    continues to outpace the number of new graduates. Baccalaureate
    programs continue to turn away tens of thousands of qualified
    applicants each year, many due to faculty shortages. We remain
    committed to partnering with the civilian sector to address
    this and other issues contributing to the worldwide shortage of
    professional nurses. We are currently researching ways to
    encourage our retired officers to consider faculty positions as
    viable second career choices.
        The Virtual Clinical Practicum is another example of our
    efforts to combat the nursing shortage. We first told you about
    this last year when nurses at Walter Reed Army Medical Center
    partnered with a rural nursing school to provide their students
    an effective clinical experience through telehealth technology.
    Last fall, approximately 180 students from this school
    participated in the second phase of this study with staff and
    one enthusiastic patient from the U.S. Army Burn Center in San
    Antonio. Planning is ongoing for a third practicum. This
    innovative research initiative is providing tertiary level
    learning opportunities for students who otherwise would not
    have that experience.
        We have been successful in establishing working
    relationships with local communities. In Korea, the 18th
    Medical Command established an exchange for professional
    nursing with the Korean Ministry of Health. Under this program,
    four Army Nurses, MAJ Michael Hawkins, MAJ Thomas Cahill, MAJ
    Dana Munari, and LTC (Ret) Priscilla Quackenbush, were
    appointed Clinical Professors at Yonsei University where so far
    they have precepted 26 Korean advanced practice nursing
    students. At West Point, LTC Diane Scherr is serving as adjunct
    faculty at Mount Saint Mary's College. Efforts such as these
    are contributing to a steady supply of basic and advanced
    practice nurses for the future.
        The nursing shortage and current operational conditions
    continue to make recruitment and retention challenging for all.
    It is projected that the need for nurses will continue to
    outpace the supply. The Active Component Army Nurse Corps is
    short 320 officers. This results in under-filled year groups.
    Every year since 1999, we have accessed an average of 16
    percent fewer officers than required and the projected
    shortfall for this year is 27 percent. We are also seeing a
    decline in our retention rates for the first time in many
    years.
        While the Army Reserve is at 100 percent of its
    authorizations for nurses, each year since 2003, we have
    accessed an average of 21 percent fewer Army Reserve nurses
    than required and half of those who were accessed possessed an
    Associate Degree in Nursing (ADN) or a Diploma in Nursing.
    However, we still cannot fill crucial company-grade ranks,
    despite concentrated efforts at recruiting ADN-prepared nurses.
    This is evidence that simply recruiting more nurses with ADNs
    is not the answer to solving our shortages in the Reserve
    Component.
        In order to mitigate the current situation, ensure
    competitive advantage, and build an Army Nurse Corps for the
    future, we must be the employer of choice for professional
    nurses. Diversified accession and retention incentives that are
    attractive to nurses in each sector of the available market are
    essential. For those sectors which we currently have no
    recruitment programs, we are collaborating with the U.S. Army
    Accessions Command to develop relevant recruitment programs
    that will attract Bachelor of Science prepared nurses to serve
    in either the Active or Reserve Component. Army Nurses at all
    levels are actively engaged in the several nurse recruitment
    and retention programs at our disposal.
        We have 47 Army Nurses assigned to recruiting duty. While
    their efforts are invaluable, we consistently hear that
    applicants want to talk to Army Nurses directly involved in
    patient care. In response to this need, we have launched the
    ``Every Nurse is a Recruiter Program'' to provide
    encouragement, opportunities, and recognition for nurses at all
    levels to become actively engaged in not only the recruitment
    of Army Nurses, but also the sustainment of professional
    nursing.
        To attract nursing students into the Reserve Officer
    Training Corps (ROTC), there has to be sufficient financial
    benefit. We thank the U.S. Army Cadet Command for providing
    full scholarships and a variety of tools and improved processes
    to ensure cadets successfully access into the Army Nurse Corps.
    We also thank Congress for ratifying a limited bonus for ROTC
    nurse cadets and increasing the cap on ROTC scholarships
    offered to cadets interested in Reserve Forces duty.
        Our AMEDD Enlisted Commissioning Program continues to be
    extremely successful. This provides Active Component Soldiers
    $10,000 per year for up to 24 months to complete their BSN
    while remaining on active duty. We currently start 65 Soldiers
    per year and hope to expand that in 2007.
        We appreciate the efforts of the U.S. Army Recruiting
    Command (USAREC) to provide the balance of professional nurses
    we require for the Active Component and all of the nurses for
    the Army Reserve. They are on the front lines competing with
    organizations that can often offer more flexible and attractive
    compensation packages. To help meet our requirements, they have
    a variety of tools available to help them attract the best-
    qualified nurses.
        For the Active Component, we offer an accession bonus of up
    to $20,000 and the Health Professional Loan Repayment Program
    (HPLRP) for up to $30,651. USAREC is able to utilize these
    tools in various combinations with service obligations to
    tailor packages to suit individual applicants. This flexibility
    has proven to be invaluable in today's highly competitive
    market. Last year, 19 percent of eligible applicants chose the
    bonus, 27 percent chose loan repayment, and 52 percent opted
    for a reduced bonus of $8,000 in combination with loan
    repayment for a six-year obligation. USAREC estimates that
    without loan repayment, we would have recruited 69 fewer new
    officers.
        In 2005, we reinstated the Army Nurse Candidate Program
    (ANCP) to target nursing students ineligible to participate in
    ROTC. ANCP provides a $10,000 bonus and a monthly stipend of
    $1,000 per month for up to 24 months to full-time students
    pursing a BSN. To date, we have 12 students enrolled in the
    program and expect two to access onto active duty this summer.
        We receive numerous inquiries from the field each year from
    Army officers interested in becoming nurses and looking for a
    program to assist them. In response, we are collaborating with
    the Office of the Surgeon General and U.S. Army Accessions
    Command to develop a program that allows them to complete their
    BSN and convert to Army Nurses, similar to the Judge Advocate
    General's Funded Legal Education Program for Army lawyers.
        For the Army Reserve, USAREC offers an accession bonus up
    to $30,000 and HPLRP up to $50,000 for selected specialties.
    Critical care, operating room, psychiatric, and medical-
    surgical nurses without a BSN can receive an accession bonus of
    up to $15,000. All Army Reserve accession incentives require a
    three-year service obligation in the Selected Reserve.
        The Specialized Training and Assistance Program for BSN
    completion (BSN-STRAP) is also now available for both new
    accessions and existing Army Reserve nurses without a BSN. This
    stipend program is for those who can complete their BSN in 24
    months or less. This is a good start, and I am hopeful that
    programs to attract BSN-prepared nurses to serve in the Army
    Reserve will be expanded in the years ahead.
        Retention of nurses is of utmost importance. Initial
    research shows that nurses stay on active duty for the
    educational opportunities, job satisfaction and retirement
    benefits. We are proud of the educational benefits we offer our
    officers. Our graduate-level specialty courses, fully-funded
    graduate and doctoral education programs, and post-graduate
    courses are second to none. However, we have five years of data
    from departing officers that consistently indicates that middle
    management, lengths of deployment, and the absence of specialty
    pay are the main reasons they leave. To address this, we are
    working to refine our retention strategy. In one research
    effort, we looked at the effect middle managers have on junior
    staff. The results of this study are being incorporated into
    our Head Nurse Leadership Course to better educate middle
    managers on the development of strong and healthy teams.
        I am particularly concerned about the retention of our
    certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs). Our inventory
    of CRNAs is currently at 73 percent. The restructuring of the
    incentive special pay program for CRNAs last year, as well as
    the 180-day deployment rotation policy were good first steps in
    stemming the loss of these highly trained providers. We are
    working closely with the Surgeon General's staff to closely
    evaluate and adjust rates and policies where needed.
        We face significant shortages of civilian RNs and LPNs,
    particularly in critical care, perioperative, and OB/GYN
    nursing. We increased utilization of contract support and are
    currently working on a civilian nurse recruitment and retention
    program for Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Fort Hood. The
    AMEDD also recently approved the limited application of a
    student loan repayment program for current and new civilian
    nurse recruits.
        One promise of the National Security Personnel System
    (NSPS) is to attract and retain talented and motivated
    employees. I remain optimistic that NSPS will address the
    issues that make civil service a disincentive for new and
    practicing nurses. We have worked with the Navy and Air Force
    to standardize duty titles throughout the system. This will
    ease local marketing and facilitate the development of tiers
    for advanced practice nurses, similar to those for physicians
    and dentists. However, the delay in implementation of NSPS
    because of legal challenges by Unions renews our concerns.
        The Sustaining Base Leadership and Management Program is a
    centrally funded leader development program in support of the
    Army Civilian Training, Education, and Development System
    (ACTEDS) preparing Army civilian and military members for
    leadership positions. We actively encourage our civilian staff
    to take advantage of this training.
        The positive impact Army Nurses make on patient care is
    found throughout the military health system. At Landstuhl
    Regional Medical Center, CPT Travis Hawksley improved the
    overall management of burn patients by developing a tool to
    accurately track fluid resuscitation throughout the evacuation
    system. Others, such as LTC Sharon Steele and LTC Kris
    Palaschak provide clinical expertise in the design and
    construction of new facilities. Our nurse informatacists work
    to deploy and upgrade electronic clinical systems used to
    document the delivery of inpatient care, provide objective data
    related to patient workload, and electronically capture,
    automate, and analyze patient safety data.
        Each year, the Daughters of the American Revolution honor
    one Active Component Army Nurse who epitomizes professional and
    military nursing excellence with the presentation of the Dr.
    Anita Newcomb McGee Award. Last year's recipient was COL Norma
    Garrett. COL Garret also received the Clinical Nursing
    Excellence Award from the Association of Military Surgeons of
    the United States for recognition of her many research
    accomplishments and contributions to clinical education.
        More than ever, the Army Nurse Corps is focused on
    providing service members and their families the absolute
    highest quality care they need and deserve. We continue
    adapting to the new realities of this long war, but remain firm
    on providing the leadership and scholarship required to advance
    the practice of professional nursing. We will maintain our
    focus on sustaining readiness, clinical competency, and sound
    educational preparation with the same commitment to serve those
    Service members who defend our Nation that we have demonstrated
    for the past 105 years. I appreciate this opportunity to
    highlight our accomplishments and discuss the issues we face.
    Thank you for your support of the Army Nurse Corps.
                                    ------

              Biographical Sketch of Major General Gale S. Pollock

        MG Gale S. Pollock was born in Kearny, New Jersey, but
    calls Texas home. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in
    nursing from the University of Maryland and is a 1979 graduate
    of the U.S. Army Nurse Anesthesia Program. She earned a Master
    of Business Administration from Boston University; a Master in
    Healthcare Administration from Baylor University; and a Master
    in National Security and Strategy from the National Defense
    University. Her military education includes completion of the
    General Officer Joint CAPSTONE program; Senior Service College
    at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces; the U.S. Air
    Force War College; the Interagency Institute for Federal Health
    Care Executives; the Military Health System CAPSTONE program;
    the Principles of Advanced Nurse Administrators; and the NATO
    Staff Officer Course.
        In addition to her responsibilities as the 22nd Chief of
    the Army Nurse Corps, MG Pollock is currently the Commander of
    Tripler Army Medical Center and the Pacific Region, U.S. Army
    Pacific Surgeon and the Multi Market manager under the regional
    TRICARE program. Her past military assignments include Special
    Assistant to the Surgeon General for Information Management and
    Health Policy; Commander, Martin Army Community Hospital, Fort
    Benning, GA; Commander, U.S. Army Medical Department Activity,
    Fort Drum, NY; Staff Officer, Strategic Initiatives Command
    Group for the Army Surgeon General; Department of Defense (DOD)
    Healthcare Advisor to the Congressional Commission on Service
    Members and Veterans Transition Assistance; Health Fitness
    Advisor at the National Defense University; Senior Policy
    Analyst in DOD Health Affairs; and Chief, Anesthesia Nursing
    Service at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC.
        MG Pollock's awards and decorations include the Legion of
    Merit (with two Oak Leaf Clusters), the Defense Meritorious
    Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal (with three Oak
    Leaf Clusters), the Joint Service Commendation Medal, the Army
    Commendation Medal, and the Army Achievement Medal. She proudly
    earned the Expert Field Medic Badge and the Parachutist Badge.
    She received the Army Staff Identification Badge for her work
    at the Pentagon. In addition, she earned the German Armed
    Forces Military Efficiency Badge, ``Leistungsabzeichen'', in
    gold.

        Senator Stevens. Admiral, we'd be pleased to have your
    statement.

    STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL CHRISTINE M. BRUZEK-KOHLER,
                DIRECTOR, NAVY NURSE CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF
                THE NAVY
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Thank you.
        Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee.
        I am Rear Admiral Christine Bruzek-Kohler, the 21st
    Director of the Navy Nurse Corps and the Navy Medical Inspector
    General. It is an honor and a privilege to speak before you
    about our outstanding 4,500 Active and Reserve Navy nurses and
    their contributions in operational, humanitarian, and
    traditional missions at the home front and abroad.
        My written statement has already been submitted for the
    record, and I would like to highlight a few key issues.
        In this time of increased deployments, our Navy nurses are
    utilizing their specialized training in critical wartime
    specialties everywhere in the continuum of care, from the
    battlefield, with our forward-deployed troops, to our military
    treatment facilities, for restorative and rehabilitative care.
        In the last year, they have served with distinction in a
    variety of locations--Kuwait, Iraq, Djibouti, Afghanistan,
    Bahrain, Qatar, Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, New Guinea,
    Pakistan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and along our own gulf coast to
    provide assistance to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita victims. As
    part of the Marine Corps team, our perioperative critical care
    and anesthesia nurses in the forward resuscitative surgical
    system, shock trauma platoons, and en route care system are
    influencing the survivability of our battlefield casualties.
    With the prevalence of combat and operational stress, mental
    health nurses are part of the collaborative treatment team
    providing immediate interventions at the front and post-
    deployment.
        At Naval Medical Center San Diego, one of our nurse leaders
    is spearheading a multidisciplinary team to establish the
    Comprehensive Combat Casualty Care Center. This is a patient-
    and family-centered cooperative program with the San Diego VA
    Medical Center to provide the full spectrum of care to our
    returning casualties and their families.
        During 2005, our hospital ships, U.S.N.S. Mercy and
    U.S.N.S. Comfort, were providing care for natural disaster
    victims overseas and along the gulf coast. Both of our hospital
    ships recently deployed, last week. While the U.S.N.S. Comfort
    is involved in a joint exercise with the Canadian Government,
    our nurses are optimizing this training opportunity to enhance
    their clinical skills in response to regional and domestic
    emergencies. Simultaneously, the U.S.N.S. Mercy is partnering
    with volunteer nurses from nongovernmental organizations and
    host nations in a transcultural nursing effort to share
    clinical skills while providing quality care during
    humanitarian missions in Southeast Asia.
        This increased operating tempo (OPTEMPO) underscores the
    necessity for clinical skills sustainment through operational
    and joint training programs such as the Defense Medical
    Readiness Training Institute for burn and trauma care and the
    Army enroute care course at Fort Rucker, Alabama, for medical
    evacuation. Through written agreements, we have also
    collaborated with civilian medical communities for training in
    intensive care, emergency, and other specialty areas.
        In the face of a national nursing shortage and the
    challenges we have had in recruiting over the past 2 years, we
    have implemented several initiatives to attain our recruiting
    goal this year. We have seen more applications as a result of
    the tiered-rate increase of our nurse corps accession bonus at
    $15,000 for a 3-year and $20,000 for a 4-year obligation. For
    the first time, we offered the health professions loan
    repayment program, up to $30,000 for school loans, with all
    positions filled. We have also increased the accession bonus
    from $5,000 to $10,000, and stipend from $500 to $1,000, for
    the nurse corps candidate program, as well as increasing our
    recruitment goals for this program by 20 nursing students, for
    a total of 75.
        Retention of Active duty nurse corps officers has posed a
    greater challenge. Our present manning end strength is at 92
    percent in the Active component. As a retention tool, the
    health professions loan repayment program was also offered for
    all eligible Navy nurses. The certified register nurse
    anesthesia incentive special pay was increased along tiered
    levels from $20,000 to $40,000, with a 1-to-4-year obligation.
    In addition, we are exploring other incentives to retain our
    junior nurse corps officers after 4 years of service.
        In the Reserve component, our critical wartime specialties
    in mental health nursing, perioperative nursing, and nurse
    anesthesia pose recruitment challenges. For that reason, fiscal
    year 2006 nurse accession bonuses are targeted toward these
    specialties. With our increased rate of mobilization to Kuwait
    and to our military treatment facilities, it is imperative that
    we meet our nursing specialty requirements and explore all
    options to support our recruitment and retention efforts.
        Civil Service nurses are the backbone of professional
    nursing practice in our military treatment facilities. To
    remain competitive during this national nursing shortage, we
    implemented the special salary pay rates granted under title 38
    at five military treatment facilities. We also implemented the
    accelerated promotion program at Naval Medical Center San Diego
    to recruit recent nursing school graduates. Our robust
    graduation--our graduate education program is one of our top
    retention initiatives. On an annual basis, we select our most
    talented nurse leaders to attend accredited universities around
    the country. They attain their master's and doctorate degrees
    in our required specialties to meet our mission.
        Our focus on military nursing research is key to successful
    patient outcomes and quality care, and we do appreciate the
    support of the tri-service nursing research program in this
    effort. As a result, we have been able to incorporate
    evidenced-based clinical-practice guidelines and multisite
    protocols. Some examples are programs in pain and wound
    management, falls precaution, and prevention of nosocomial
    infections. Our innovative practices and research findings
    involving care from the battlefield to our military treatment
    facilities are cited in numerous professional publications and
    textbooks. Navy nurses have also shared their expertise, their
    presentations at national and international healthcare forums.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In summary, from World War I to the present global war on
    terrorism, Active and Reserve Navy nurses have answered the
    call of a grateful Nation and created a legacy for all of us.
    In the tradition of nursing excellence, our nurses are
    providing the finest care worldwide, making a positive and
    meaningful difference in the lives of our sailors, marines,
    their dependents, and our retired heroes. I appreciate the
    opportunity of sharing the accomplishments and issues that face
    Navy nursing. I look forward very much to working with you
    during my tenure as director of the Navy Nurse Corps.
        Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Christine M. Bruzek-Kohler

        Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and distinguished
    members of the Committee. I am Rear Admiral Christine Bruzek-Kohler,
    the 21st Director of the Navy Nurse Corps and the Naval Medical
    Inspector General. It is an honor and privilege to speak before you
    about our outstanding 4,500 Active and Reserve Navy Nurses and their
    contributions in operational, humanitarian and traditional missions at
    the home front and abroad. We have had many challenges facing us over
    the past year including the continuing War in Iraq, the Global War on
    Terrorism and the recent devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
    Based on the magnificent performance of our Navy Nurses answering the
    call to duty at a moment's notice and the support of our outstanding
    Civil Service and contract nurses, I am confident that we successfully
    meet all challenges with commitment and dedication while providing hope
    and comfort to all those in need.
        The future success of the Navy Nurse Corps depends on our ability
    to clearly articulate our military relevance and alignment with the
    goals of the Navy and Navy Medicine. To accomplish this, our nurse
    leaders recently met to review our strategic goals and objectives in
    2005 and determine where we need to be in 2006 and beyond. The outcome
    of this meeting resulted in the establishment of five priorities for
    Navy Nursing, specifically aligned with the vision and goals of the
    Chief of Naval Operations and our Surgeon General. To chart our course
    and navigate our achievements into the future, these five priorities
    include: emphasis on clinical proficiency to sustain our readiness;
    validation of Nurse Corps requirements and force shaping; review of the
    processes to match educational opportunities to requirements; improved
    management and leadership development for mid-level Nurse Corps
    officers; and a formalized leadership continuum for senior Nurse Corps
    officers entering executive level positions. Addressing each category,
    I will highlight our achievements and issues of concern.

                       READINESS AND CLINICAL PROFICIENCY

        Throughout the career continuum, all Navy Nurses must be
    responsive, capable and continually ready to maintain mission
    essentiality. We must be clinically proficient to quickly deploy,
    arrive on the scene whether it is New Orleans or Baghdad, and deliver
    the finest nursing care. Solid clinical competencies ranging from the
    fundamentals to specific wartime specialties serve as the foundation to
    enhance the depth and quality of nursing care in all environments. To
    meet these challenges, we remain on the cutting edge of clinical
    nursing to provide the finest care to our Sailors and Marines, while
    welcoming opportunities to participate in a joint service environment.
        During the past year, Navy Nurses from both active and reserve
    components were deployed throughout the world as members of joint,
    multi-national, Marine Corps and Navy missions, recording over 60,000
    days in support of and training for our missions. Operational units
    were located in Kuwait, Iraq, Djibouti, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Qatar,
    Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, New Guinea, Pakistan, Guantanamo Bay,
    Cuba and along our own Gulf Coast to provide assistance to Hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita victims. Nursing care services for both operational
    and humanitarian missions were delivered by Surgical Teams, U.S. Marine
    Corps Surgical Companies, Shock Trauma Platoons, and the Forward
    Resuscitative Surgical Systems, including the Enroute Care System Teams
    for casualty evacuation. In addition, care was provided in
    Expeditionary Medical Facilities; on Navy and Hospital ships including
    aircraft carriers; and at our military treatment facilities.
        Ultimately supporting warfighting capability, Navy Nurses are at
    the front, developing and implementing numerous health care programs to
    assist active duty personnel and their families. With the prevalence of
    combat and operational stress, mental health nurses are providing
    immediate interventions at the front, assisting our troops to cope;
    through humanitarian missions, providing aid to natural disaster
    victims; and to our military treatment facilities, enhancing access to
    care for our military personnel and their families. Through the Medical
    Rehabilitation Platoon Program at Camp Geiger, North Carolina, nurses
    have closely coordinated the medical care of our Marines, decreasing
    their length of stay in the program and increasing their timely return
    to full duty for training. As active participants in Operation Special
    Delivery at Twenty-Nine Palms, California, nurses received Honorable
    Mention through the Admiral Thompson Awards Program for Community
    Relations. As trained doulas, they provide physical, emotional and
    information support to women with deployed spouses before, during and
    after childbirth. Partnering with volunteer Project Hope nurses, our
    Navy Nurses of all specialties assisted devastated Americans along the
    Gulf Coast and onboard the Hospital Ship Comfort, providing the best
    quality of care with pride. The most noteworthy accomplishments
    included providing emergency trauma care, completing over 900
    screenings for trauma indicators and crisis management; implementing
    preventive mental health interventions for local relief workers; and
    establishing a Mother Baby Unit.
        Our nurses continuously seek specialized training to enhance their
    critical wartime nursing specialties to safely administer immediate and
    emergent care in any situation. To provide comprehensive care for our
    trauma casualties, Navy Nurses have maximized available training
    opportunities through the Navy Trauma Training Course at the Los
    Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center with
    their operational platform team members; the Tri-service Combat
    Casualty Course in San Antonio, Texas for all nurses; and the Military
    Contingency Medicine/Bushmaster Course for our students at the
    Uniformed Services University Graduate School of Nursing in Bethesda,
    Maryland.
        Joint training opportunities in critical wartime nursing
    specialties in both military and civilian medical communities are
    essential to enhance our mission-ready capabilities. Navy Nurses in
    Guam, Marianas Island have rendered assistance to Air Force nurses in
    maintaining their critical readiness skills. In return, our nurses have
    attended the Air Force Critical Care Air Transport Team Training in San
    Antonio, Texas to optimize medical evacuation efforts. Coordinating
    with Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, our nurses from
    Naples, Italy have been able to enhance their clinical skills in
    emergency room, critical care, advanced medical-surgical and
    complicated obstetrics. Our nurses in Yokosuka, Japan have invited the
    Japanese Self Defense Force nurses to their Trauma Nurse Core Courses,
    fostering goodwill relationships. Supporting the concept of
    interoperability, Navy Nurses in the reserve component have worked
    seamlessly with the Defense Medical Readiness Training Institute,
    sponsoring and teaching three professional programs pertaining to
    trauma. A total of 50 courses in Advanced Burn Life Support, Combat
    Trauma Nurse Curriculum and Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support were
    conducted on-site at San Antonio, Texas and exported to several
    regional training sites to maximize participation, such as in Camp
    Pendleton, California; Great Lakes, Illinois; Dallas, Texas; and Fort
    Gordon, Georgia.
        Within and across our military treatment facilities, we optimize
    all cross-training opportunities to maintain clinical proficiency for
    our operational assignments. We continue with robust Nurse Internship
    Programs at our three Medical Centers at Bethesda, Maryland;
    Portsmouth, Virginia; and San Diego, California. With the return of
    Sailors and Marines from Iraq with complicated trauma wounds, we have
    focused more intensive training to become certified wound care
    specialists. Aligned with professional standards of practice, we have
    adopted the Essentials of Critical Care Orientation by the American
    Association of Critical Care Nurses as our primary didactic critical
    care training curriculum, augmented with on-site clinical rotations at
    our larger military treatment facilities. The successful Post
    Anesthesia Care Course at Bethesda, Maryland has included a total of 30
    Army and Air Force nurses and medics in addition to Navy personnel in
    the past year, and has been exported to other Navy military treatment
    facilities due to its strong clinical content and application.
        Collaborating with our civilian medical communities, our nurses in
    Jacksonville, Florida maintain an agreement with Shands Medical Center
    to train in their intensive care unit, emergency room and neonatal
    ward. In addition, at the Medical University of South Carolina, our
    nurses in Charleston participate in a two-week trauma orientation to
    sustain their clinical readiness. In our outreach support of community
    education, we have provided clinical experiences and preceptors to
    nursing programs throughout the United States. We have also
    participated in collaborative training groups, such as the Greater
    Washington Area Consortium for Critical Care Nursing Education. These
    examples are only a few of the many courses and training sessions
    taking place on a regular basis to maintain clinical proficiency and
    optimize operational readiness.

                         REQUIREMENTS AND FORCE SHAPING

        Maintaining the right force structure is essential in meeting Navy
    Medicine's overall mission through validated nursing specialty
    requirements, utilizing the talent and clinical expertise of our
    uniformed and civilian nurses. Focused on our operational missions, our
    wartime specialties include nurse anesthesia, critical care, emergency,
    mental health, medical-surgical and perioperative nursing.
        The national nursing shortage, compounded by competition with
    civilian institutions as well as other federal sectors, has resulted in
    direct accession recruiting shortfalls over the last two years. For
    that reason, we continue to closely monitor the status of our pipeline
    scholarship programs, which include the Nurse Candidate Program, the
    Medical Enlisted Commission Program, the Naval Reserve Officer Training
    Corps Program, and the Seaman to Admiral Program. Rate increases were
    applied this fiscal year to our Nurse Corps Accession Bonus to attract
    new applicants to the naval service. In addition to increasing the
    accession bonus and stipend for the Nurse Candidate Program, we have
    recently increased our recruitment goals for this program by 20 nursing
    students.
        Retention of active duty Nurse Corps officers has posed a bigger
    challenge, with retention rates after the first four years of
    commissioned service ranging from 54 to 72 percent for all accession
    categories and decreasing further beyond 4 to 7 years of service. At
    the end of calendar year 2005, our manning end strength decreased to 94
    percent in the active component, with a deficit of 175 Navy Nurses.
    Within our wartime specialties, shortfalls have been identified in
    critical care with an end strength of 57 percent, nurse anesthesia at
    84 percent and perioperative nursing at 90 percent. To counter these
    deficiencies, the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program was
    recently implemented for recruitment and retention purposes. In
    addition, the Certified Registered Nurse Anesthesia Incentive Special
    Pay was increased. We will continue to closely monitor our end strength
    through the year, evaluate newly initiated programs and explore other
    options to retain our talent at the 4 to 10 years of service level.
        In the reserve component, our critical wartime specialties also
    pose a recruitment and retention challenge in mental health nursing,
    perioperative nursing and nurse anesthesia. For that reason, fiscal
    year 2006 Nurse Accession Bonuses are focused on these specialties. We
    had a record of success during the past fiscal year with the Nurse
    Accession Bonus when it was offered for the first time to professional
    nurses with less than one year of experience. Since there is a national
    nursing shortage of perioperative nurses, our six-week perioperative
    nursing training programs in Jacksonville, Florida and Camp Pendleton,
    California now include our reserve nurses. As a pipeline program, our
    Hospital Corpsman to Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program has
    resulted in three Nurse Corps Officers entering the reserves since its
    inception two years ago, with twenty-three participants who will
    graduate within the next one to two years. With our increased rate of
    mobilization to Kuwait and to our military treatment facilities, it is
    imperative that we meet our nursing specialty requirements and explore
    all options to support our recruitment and retention efforts.
        Civil Service nurses are the backbone of professional nursing
    practice in our military treatment facilities as the frequency of
    deployment schedules increases for our uniformed personnel. We continue
    to encourage the use of authorized compensation packages to retain our
    talented nurses through recruitment, retention and/or relocation
    bonuses to meet staffing requirements. Last year, we implemented
    Special Salary Pay rates granted under Title 38 at five military
    treatment facilities in San Diego, California; Camp Pendleton,
    California; Twenty-Nine Palms, California; Great Lakes, Illinois; and
    Bethesda, Maryland to compensate for on-call, weekend, holiday, and
    shift differential duty, resulting in satisfaction to staff members and
    leadership. In addition, we have recently implemented the Accelerated
    Promotion Program in San Diego, California to recruit novice nurses
    with less than one year of experience, who have been integrated into
    their Nurse Internship Program to develop solid clinical skills.
        Our success in meeting the mission in all care environments
    requires that we continuously reassess our measures of effectiveness,
    adjust personnel assignments, transfer authorized billets, and revise
    training plans. To maximize our performance, it is imperative that we
    pursue funding to recruit and retain our exceptionally talented nurses
    to meet our staffing requirements. We will also closely monitor the
    national nursing shortage projections and the civilian and federal
    compensation packages to determine the best course for us to take in
    this competitive market.

                        EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND POLICIES

        The Navy Nurse Corps provides state-of-the-art nursing care around
    the world, 365 days a year by continually adapting to the ever-changing
    healthcare environment. We accomplish this by maintaining our
    competitive edge beyond the status quo through a variety of
    initiatives. On an annual basis, we shape our graduate education
    training plan based on our health care and operational support
    requirements. We select our most talented nurse leaders to attend
    accredited universities around the country to attain their masters and
    doctorate degrees, which has also proven to be an invaluable retention
    tool. In addition, a plethora of continuing education courses and
    specialized training opportunities are available to further enhance
    solid clinical skills.
        The success of our graduate education and specialized training is
    exemplified through the remarkable impact of our professional
    achievements in Navy Medicine and across the Department of Defense. Our
    advance practice nurses lead the way in building upon our reputation of
    outstanding patient care by incorporating evidence-based clinical
    practice guidelines and multi-site protocols to improve patient
    outcomes. Through the Evidence-Based Consortium developed by nurses
    from Bethesda, Maryland, and Portsmouth, Virginia with Walter Reed Army
    Medical Center, team training has resulted in a focus on primary
    surgical wound dressings, alcohol withdrawal assessment and peripheral
    intravenous therapy. In collaboration with the Washington State
    Hospital Association as part of Institute for Health Care Improvement
    initiatives, our nurses in Bremerton, Washington have participated in
    the implementation of three clinical practice guideline protocols:
    elimination of nosocomial infections, prevention of ventilator
    associated pneumonia and prevention of central line infections. Each
    protocol consists of a group of interventions resulting in better
    outcomes, a reduction in mortality, and cost containment. Nurses at
    Bethesda, Maryland are involved in a TRI-STATE initiative implementing
    similar protocols, in addition to the Critical Care clinical practice
    guideline. Through the Pain Management Clinic at Jacksonville, Florida,
    civilian referrals have been reduced and patient satisfaction
    increased, resulting in significant cost avoidance.
        The focus on military nursing research is essential to successful
    patient outcomes and quality care. Sponsored by the TriService Nursing
    Research Program, the collaborative multi-phase Evidence Based Practice
    Improvement Project between National Naval Medical Center and Walter
    Reed Army Medical Center plans to implement six nursing practice
    guidelines at each site. Our Navy Nurses have developed guidelines for
    pain management, falls prevention and neonatal tactile stimulation and
    thermoregulation. A sample of funded research studies includes:
    Retention of Recalled Navy Nurse Reservists Following Operation Iraqi
    Freedom; Oxidative Stress and Pulmonary Injury in U.S. Navy Divers;
    Coping Interventions for Children of Deployed Parents; and Focused
    Integrative Coping Strategies for Sailors, a Follow-Up Intervention
    Study.
        There have been numerous publications attesting to the expertise of
    our Navy Nurses, such as in Advances of Neonatal Care, Archives of
    Psychiatric Nursing, Association of Operating Room Nurses Magazine,
    Journal of Cardiac Failure and professional textbooks. In addition,
    Navy Nurses have been invited to present innovative practice and
    research findings at Sigma Theta Tau Nursing Honor Society's
    International Nursing Research Congress; the Annual Meeting of the
    Association of Military Surgeons of the United States; the 18th Annual
    Pacific Research Conference, and many more. Of prestigious note, two of
    our Navy Nurses were invited to coordinate and present a symposium
    entitled ``Military Nursing Care: Land, on the Sea and in the Air''
    with Army and Air Force colleagues at the Biennium Conference for Sigma
    Theta Tau International focusing on burn care, quality of life and
    nursing care delivered in austere environments.
        It is this personal dedication to the highest clinical proficiency
    and continuing education that makes us proud members of the military
    healthcare system today and tomorrow. As the scope and practice of
    nursing continues to grow, we must make sure that we continue to be
    closely aligned with Navy Medicine and the Line community.

               MID-LEVEL LEADERSHIP/SENIOR LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

        The last two priorities consist of improving management and
    leadership development for mid-level Nurse Corps officers and
    formalizing the leadership continuum for senior Nurse Corps officers
    entering executive level positions. Leadership development begins the
    day our nurses take the commissioning oath as Naval Officers and is
    continuously refined throughout an individual's career with increased
    scope of responsibilities, upward mobility, and pivotal leadership
    roles within the field of nursing and health care in general. Our Navy
    Nurses are proven strategic leaders in the field of education,
    research, clinical performance, and health care executive management.
    To insure we continue this legacy of nursing excellence, it is critical
    that we identify those leadership characteristics and associated
    knowledge, skills and abilities that are directly linked to successful
    executives in Navy Medicine. This information will provide the basis
    for ongoing leadership development of our mid-grade officers as they
    advance in their leadership and management positions and experiences.
        To meet today's challenges, nurse leaders must be visionary,
    innovative and actively engaged across joint service and interagency
    levels to maximize our medical capabilities and achieve new heights of
    excellence. As one of many examples, a Navy Nurse recently assumed
    command of the Expeditionary Military Facility at Kuwait, which is
    comprised of personnel from 22 Navy Medical Commands. Navy Medicine
    Emergency Management Program nurses are developing a comprehensive
    strategy to guide our efforts to prevent or deter health consequences
    of natural or international attacks. Navy Nurses are involved in the
    multi-faceted development of a Federal Health Care Facility as part of
    the Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense partnering project. Within
    the Reserve Component, our dedicated Navy Nurses are in key leadership
    positions in their units, as well as in their civilian organizations,
    professional associations and local communities. Of particular note,
    our nurse leaders in the Navy Reserve Operational Health Support Unit
    at Jacksonville, Florida attended training at the Air National Guard's
    Mentoring Conference, prior to developing and coordinating the Navy's
    Mentoring Initiative. Effective partnerships have resulted in positive
    mentoring experiences between junior and senior officers, promotions,
    advancement to leadership positions, and professional development.

                                CLOSING REMARKS

        From World War I to the present War on Terrorism, active and
    reserve Navy Nurses have answered the call of a grateful nation and
    created a legacy for all of us. As we near the 100th anniversary of the
    Navy Nurse Corps, we are most proud of being integral members of the
    One Navy Medicine Team through an outstanding record of partnering with
    civilian and military health care teams, ensuring a better tomorrow for
    all. Our nurses provide the finest care worldwide and make a positive
    and meaningful difference in the lives of our Sailors, Marines, their
    dependents and our retired heroes. The basis of our future requires
    that we align with the mission of our armed forces while adapting to
    the advances in professional nursing practice. The uniqueness of
    military nursing is our dynamic ability to seamlessly integrate the
    critical nursing specialties into the personal needs of the troops on
    the field and at sea. Indeed, we will continue the exemplary tradition
    of Navy Nursing Excellence by focusing on interoperability and working
    side by side with colleagues from each service with personal pride.
        I appreciate the opportunity of sharing the accomplishments and
    issues that face Navy Nursing. I look forward to working with you
    during my tenure as Director of the Navy Nurse Corps.

        Senator Stevens. General Rank.

    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MELISSA A. RANK, ASSISTANT
                SURGEON GENERAL FOR NURSING SERVICES,
                DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
        General Rank. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the
    subcommittee, it is truly my honor to represent the Active
    duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilian nurses and medical
    technicians of the United States Air Force total nursing force.
    This diverse group of professionals partner with the Air Force
    Medical Service to ensure a fit and healthy force, prevent
    casualties, restore health, and enhance human performance.
        I have personally contacted every Active duty chief nurse
    and senior medical technician and asked them, ``What keeps you
    up at night?'' Their predominant concerns validated my vision
    to strengthen operational currency and clinical expertise.
    Today, I will share with you our successes and challenges in
    expeditionary nursing, clinical skills sustainment, recruiting
    and retention, research, and future initiatives.
        Over the past year, our responsiveness was put to the test
    and was highly successful in the U.S. Central Command's Area of
    Responsibility and at home station. We are trained, current,
    and mobile. Our primary contributions to expeditionary
    operations are lifesaving medical/surgery and critical-care
    skills, and aeromedical evacuation. Even greater strides have
    been made ramping up from home station to war front. We credit
    this to our current inpatient experiences and continuous
    improvements in predeployment training. We deploy 2,369 total
    force nursing service personnel to five aeromedical evacuation
    locations, 10 expeditionary medical support units, and two
    contingency aeromedical staging facilities (CASF). Total
    patients evacuated from theater in support of Operation
    Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) were
    33,615 from October 10, 2001 to April 14, 2006. Of that total,
    over 6,200 were due to battle injuries. Key in the clinical
    transformation of our aeromedical evacuation system was the
    shift from transporting stable patients to rapidly moving
    patients requiring continuous in-flight stabilization, putting
    critical care nurses in very high demand. Our highly
    specialized critical care air-transport teams moved 711
    critically ill patients last year.
        The expeditionary medical group at Balad is currently home
    to 69 nurses and 97 medical technicians from our total force,
    the Army, and multinational forces. Nine different surgical
    specialties are on hand to provide state-of-the-art treatment,
    including care of massive trauma.
        The CASF at Ramstein Air Base safely moved over 15,000
    patients to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. Time and again,
    the heroic efforts of the integrated healthcare team at
    Landstuhl came together to save the lives of wounded Americans,
    coalition forces, DOD contractors, and members of the press
    corps.
        The best way for nurses to maintain currency and be
    effective in deployed settings is to have recent hands-on
    experience as inpatient nurses. Recently, I released a policy
    mandating that nurses working in outpatient and nonclinical
    roles will complete a minimum of 168 hours on inpatient units
    annually. Bringing seasoned clinicians back to the bedside will
    provide a robust, technically ready force and mentorship to the
    less experienced.
        Due to unique deployment missions, we are increasingly
    using the Center for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills
    Training Platform (C-STARS). C-STARS produces medics ready to
    respond to peacetime or wartime contingencies through intense
    clinical immersion. The USUHS Graduate School of Nursing
    incorporated ``go to war'' skillsets into the curriculum for
    advanced practice nurses.
        At home, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uniquely challenged
    our total force. Aeromedical evacuation crews and Expeditionary
    Medical Support (EMEDS) teams from Active duty, Guard, and
    Reserve safely moved over 2,600 patients after Katrina, and
    over 1,200 patients before Rita made landfall. Keesler Medical
    Center was greatly impacted by Katrina. Their staff saved
    130,000 medical records, erected an EMEDs, accounted for
    personnel, built new staffing requirements, and reopened
    limited primary care services in less than 1 month after the
    hurricane.
        Nursing is globally engaged, at stateside and overseas
    locations. Independent-duty medical technicians, Technical
    Sergeant Steven Yates and Technical Sergeant John Strothenke,
    from Alaska, deployed in support of the Joint Prisoners of War/
    Missing in Action (POW/MIA) Account Command Mission, which
    recovered the remains of 19 service members in last calendar
    year.
        Through the international health specialist program, we
    gained access to countries that are otherwise inaccessible.
    Major Stephanie Buffet, currently working for the U.S. Central
    Command (CENTCOM) surgeon, played a pivotal role in the Air
    Force's response to medical issues in the ongoing Pakistan
    earthquake relief efforts.
        Continuous global engagement is making recruiting and
    retaining nurses one of our top priorities, especially with the
    national nursing shortage. Our accession sources include direct
    accession, Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship,
    health profession scholarship program, and enlisted to Bachelor
    of Science in Nursing (BSN) programs. In fiscal year 2005, we
    assessed 69 percent of our total recruiting goal of 357. Direct
    accessions, accounting for 82 percent took advantage of the
    recruiting bonus or the loan repayment program, and will
    increase for fiscal year 2006. And we thank you.
        We are investigating a robust nurse enlisted commissioning
    program, mirroring the Navy's success, to produce 50 officers
    from our enlisted force, allowing them to attend accredited
    bachelor's or entry-level master's programs. In fiscal year
    2005, our nurse corps inventory was at 90 percent of authorized
    positions. Currently, our inventory is a concerning 87 percent.
        We continue to monitor our attrition rates, particularly
    those at the first decision point at the completion of initial
    obligated service--4 years of commissioned service. To ensure
    we retain those experienced nurses, we plan to offer a critical
    skills retention bonus near the end of their initial
    commitment. We are also partnering with our sister services and
    Veterans Administration (VA) counterparts to expand training
    platforms.
        In addition to financial and training incentives, the
    quality of our medical treatment facilities is clearly of
    importance to recruiting and retaining top professionals.
    Sustaining state-of-the-art infrastructure is a top priority
    for maximizing clinical and operational effectiveness and
    promoting a safe environment for both staff and patients.
        Air Force nurses continue to remain at the forefront of
    operational research. Crucial areas being examined include
    deployment health, sustaining competencies, military practice
    outcomes, recruitment, and retention. None of this would be
    possible without the enormous support from the tri-service
    nursing research program, that will have far-reaching
    implications for our military forces.
        Several major events continue to shape our future. The Air
    Force transitioned to an expeditionary mission, and now
    deliberately prepares airmen through aggressive force
    development policies and programs. Through a comprehensive
    review of the medical group structure, we developed a new
    flight path to guide our organizational structure and the
    development of our clinical discipline. The flight path guides
    more deliberate development, placing the member in the right
    job at the right time, setting them up for career success and
    personal satisfaction, while maintaining expertise at the front
    lines of patient care.
        Nursing is already preparing for the many BRAC-related
    challenges by finding alternative inpatient platforms to train
    and sustain personnel, and by determining the right composition
    of Active duty ``blue suit'', requirements. We continue to
    evaluate our deployment-drive requirements and use market
    availability, along with cost data, to recommend appropriate
    civilian conversions. We plan to target company-grade
    outpatient and maternal childcare positions, while maintaining
    Active duty nurses for inpatient platforms. Along these lines,
    the results of the 2001 Air Force Surgeon General directed
    Nurse Corps Topdown Grade Review continues to guide our
    actions, and we strive to balance our company- and field-grade
    authorizations. We remain optimistic that our course of action
    will help improve overall promotion opportunity; therefore,
    increasing retention of experienced nurses. We've successfully
    increased field-grade requirements for deployment positions and
    are taking steps to lay in more senior clinicians at home
    station.
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
    it is an honor and a privilege to lead the men and women of our
    Active, Reserve, and Guard nursing services. My objective for
    this presentation was to provide you a glimpse of the
    extraordinary men and women that make up nursing services and
    the exceptional work they are doing daily in the service of
    their country. I look to the future optimistically and desire
    your continued support during these exciting times ahead for
    nursing and our Air Force.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you for inviting me and allowing me to tell our
    story.
        [The statement follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Major General Melissa A. Rank

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it is
    truly an honor for me to be here for the first time representing Air
    Force Nursing Services. We employ a diverse group of professionals to
    ensure a fit and healthy force, prevent casualties, restore health, and
    enhance human performance.
        The vision for my tenure is to strengthen operational nursing
    currency and clinical expertise. The Air Force Nurse Corps will focus
    on our continued development as a clinical discipline to sustain nurses
    and aerospace medical technicians in an ever-changing, joint
    interoperable environment.

                             EXPEDITIONARY NURSING

        Our expeditionary medical capability has been proven and Air Force
    Nursing Services remains in the forefront supporting the war fighter.
    Globally since the year 2000, we supported 202 worldwide missions and
    exercises, treated 1.47 million patients, assisted with 2,700
    surgeries, and helped train 4,200 foreign medics. Just this past year,
    we deployed 2,369 nursing service personnel in support of Operations
    ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM (OEF/OIF). These Total Nursing Force
    members from the Active Duty (AD), Air National Guard (ANG), and Air
    Force Reserve Command (AFRC) deployed in support of 5 Aeromedical
    Evacuation (AE) locations, 10 Expeditionary Medical Support Units
    (EMEDS), and 2 Contingency Aeromedical Staging Facilities (CASF). We
    are trained, current and mobile.
        Survival rates have improved from 75 percent during Vietnam, DESERT
    SHIELD and DESERT STORM to 90 percent in OEF/OIF in large part due to
    forward deployed surgical teams and rapid AE. Total patients evacuated
    from theater in support of OIF and OEF were 33,615 (October 10, 2001 to
    April 14, 2006). Of that total, 6,243 were due to battle injuries. Key
    in the clinical transformation of our AE system is the shift from
    transporting stable patients to rapidly moving patients requiring
    continuous in-flight stabilization, putting critical care nurses in
    high demand. Our highly specialized Critical Care Air Transport Teams
    (CCATT) moved 711 critically ill patients last year.
        The 332nd Expeditionary Medical Group in Balad is currently home to
    69 nurses and 97 aerospace medical technicians from the Air Force Total
    Nursing Force, the Army, and multinational auxiliaries. Nine different
    surgical specialties are on hand to rapidly provide state-of-the-art
    treatment including care of massive trauma. These teams have responded
    to numerous mass casualty surges and have many incredible stories to
    tell.
        One story comes from Senior Airman Timothy Woodall, a reservist
    from the 349th Medical Squadron at Travis AFB California, serving at
    Balad. One of his most memorable patients is a three-year-old boy who
    was part of a tragedy that took his mother's life and left him with 30
    percent burns to the right side of his body. SrA Woodall, as one of his
    primary caregivers, delivered some of his medications, assisted with
    his routine tube feedings, and had the arduous task of changing his
    bandages. For SrA Woodall, being at Balad has been an enlightening
    experience, using more of his clinical skills in two months than he has
    in the past two years. We are delighted to report that the boy has
    healed very well and gone home.
        Gathering wounded service members and transporting them to higher
    echelons of care are scheduled missions like the ones flown by a Royal
    Australian Air Force C-130 aircrew with a U.S. Air Force medical team.
    ``The patients we carry on these missions were injured in some way,
    down range,'' reports Captain Kristie Harlow, 379th Expeditionary
    Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron flight nurse. ``Our job is to get them
    where they need to go for treatment, while providing them the care they
    need.'' Litters are stacked, bunk-bed style, in the cargo aircraft. The
    crew and medics wear body armor and Kevlar helmets for most of the 15-
    hour mission days, even while tending to patients. All on board agree
    that the Australian hosts, part of the Australian Defense Force's Joint
    Task Force 633, provide first class accommodations for the patients and
    the Airmen who care for them.
        Some of our personnel have also risked their own lives to save
    others. Capt. Kevin Polk received the Bronze Star for saving an injured
    Airman while deployed as a CCATT nurse with the 379th Expeditionary
    Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron. He had only been in Iraq a couple of
    days, when the base came under direct mortar attack. Despite being
    exposed to enemy fire, Captain Polk searched the living quarters for
    potential victims, where he found an Airman with life-threatening
    injuries. He stabilized the Airman's condition and assisted with the
    medical transport of the Airman to a hospital for emergency surgery.
    The Airman sustained permanent disabilities, but Captain Polk's heroic
    response was credited with saving his life.
        A typical day at the CASF in Balad consists of recovering two to
    three aerovac missions from the AOR with patients ranging from routine
    to critical. In addition, approximately 125 patients are prepared
    weekly for aerovac missions that transport patients from the CASF to
    Ramstein Air Base Germany, and then back to the United States. Patient
    support pallets and additional C-17 litter stanchions have increased
    the number of planes available for AE. The CASF at the 435th Medical
    Group, Ramstein Air Base, Germany, continued its high operational
    tempo, safely moving 15,093 patients between January 1, 2005 and
    December 31, 2005 to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) for
    admission and treatment until they are scheduled to travel stateside.
    Time and again the heroic efforts of the integrated healthcare team at
    LRMC come together to save the lives of the wounded Soldiers, Marines,
    Sailors, Airmen, coalition forces, DOD contractors, and members of the
    Press Corps. In fact, one Marine said, ``I knew that if I got to
    Landstuhl, I would make it.'' Countless others share this sentiment.
        A talented, multiservice nursing leadership team keeps this smooth
    running engine moving forward, always poised for the next potential
    wartime patient surge. Senior Air Force nurses are in leadership roles
    at LRMC. Col Sherry Cox is the imbedded Air Force Chief Nurse,
    providing guidance and direction to a team of outstanding nurses in
    various roles in both inpatient and outpatient roles. Her team found
    that there is a compelling impact on those who care for wounded
    Americans, allies, and even the enemy. As a consequence of prolonged
    exposure to caring for those traumatically injured, healthcare workers
    are at risk for burnout including feelings of detachment, loss of
    compassion, significant physiological stress symptoms and reduced
    morale. LRMC has established a formal program to support the staff and
    encourage the use of healthy stress coping methods. The major aim of
    the program is to increase awareness at all levels to the potential
    risk posed by repeated exposure to combat trauma with early
    identification and intervention.
        The Theater Patient Movement Requirements Center (TPMRC) is the
    pivotal ``behind the scenes'' agency facilitating the AE of combat
    injured troops. As part of the TPMRC team, the Senior Flight Nurse
    Clinical Coordinator, expedited the transfer of six critically burned
    service members after an Improvised Explosive Devise (IED) struck their
    Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Working around-the-clock with the Joint
    Patient Movement Requirements Center (JPMRC) and multiple European
    agencies, the TPMRC expeditiously synchronized the transport of these
    severely wounded troops by a specialized burn team from Brooke Army
    Medical Center (BAMC), Texas. In less than 48 hours from the time our
    heroes landed at Ramstein AB Germany, they were receiving definitive
    treatment at the Military's ``Center of Excellence'' for burns, BAMC in
    San Antonio, Texas.

                          HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA

        The hurricane evacuations of 2005 uniquely challenged our
    aeromedical evacuation crewmembers (AECMs). AE units and EMEDS from Air
    Force Total Nursing Force supported the evacuations from Hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita while MAJCOM-level staff worked around the clock to
    coordinate and execute the missions. The ANG represented 25 percent of
    all military medical personnel deployed to the disaster areas with 901
    medics for both hurricanes. Despite complex challenges, the teams
    ensured the safe evacuation of 2,609 Hurricane Katrina patients. On
    September 3, 2005, the teams moved 580 litters and 300 ambulatory
    patients, the largest single day of transports since WWII. Over 1,200
    patients were moved in 24 hours before Hurricane Rita made landfall. A
    tremendous amount of orchestration was required between our AE mission
    coordinators and civilian counterparts to ensure the needs of a massive
    number of displaced people were met. AECMs worked extraordinarily long
    hours and loaded patients until they could practically no longer
    physically carry a litter.
        There are many heroes from Hurricane Katrina and the staff of the
    81st Medical Group, Keesler AFB is among them. Lt Col Maureen Koch,
    Flight Commander of the ICU, and her family were among the thousand or
    so military, family members, and patients who sheltered in the 81 MDG
    during Hurricane Katrina. Lt Col Koch's focus was on caring for two
    ICU's ventilator patients and a pregnant woman requiring an emergency
    caesarean section. Personnel quickly converted one ICU room into a
    makeshift operating room and the baby was delivered safely. In
    addition, the medics accomplished many other unprecedented actions.
    They saved 130,000 medical records, erected a portable bedded facility,
    accounted for thousands of personnel after the disaster, built new
    staffing requirements, and re-opened limited primary care services in
    less than one month after the hurricane.
        ANG personnel assisted with the setup of an EMEDS at Charity
    Hospital in New Orleans and training of the civilian staff.
    Additionally, medical professionals from the Mississippi, Alabama,
    Kansas and Delaware Air National Guards erected an EMEDS in Hancock
    County, MS. Forty-nine percent of the patients treated were from
    military organizations (AD, Reserve, Guard) and 56 percent were Non-DOD
    personnel. The ANG provided 68 percent of all immunizations given in
    the surrounding area.
        Hurricane Rita operations, staged out of Beaumont, Texas were
    confronted with preparing and transporting a large number of elderly
    patients with a Category five storm scheduled to make land-fall in less
    than 24 hours. Chief Master Sergeant Rodney Christa, a reservist, from
    the 433 AES, Lackland AFB TX, was appointed to the on-scene Command
    Element for both hurricane evacuations. Chief Christa stated,
    ``Although the number of patients we had to transport was greater for
    Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita was more stressful because the storm
    was bearing down upon us. Time was critical. Hospitals, nursing homes
    and private citizens were literally driving up by the busload to our
    doorstep. We had no idea what to expect; we received patients on
    ventilators, those needing dialysis and newborns. All needed medical
    care. At one point, I thought we were going to have to leave medics
    behind to remain with patients and ride out the hurricane. The patients
    were arriving faster than we could airlift them to safety. With
    teamwork, we were able to get everyone on the last aircraft available
    before the winds were too strong to allow us to take-off.''
        On September 22, 2005, an ANG crew from the 167th AES led by flight
    nurse, Major Jay Sandy, from Andrews AFB, MD, launched a C-5 Galaxy to
    Beaumont, Texas, to evacuate 117 incapacitated nursing home and
    hospitalized patients. During the flight to Dobbins AFB, they
    experienced several medical emergencies that were rapidly stabilized
    in-flight due to the highly experienced medical team. The Georgia Civil
    Defense Team of 100 volunteer physicians, nurses, and other personnel
    assisted with the offload and management of the evacuees. This mission
    was successful due to the superior leadership, professionalism,
    teamwork, and medical expertise of all involved.

                               CLINICAL SUCCESSES

        Air Force Nursing Services is globally engaged, at stateside and
    overseas locations, in the enhancement of patient care outcomes through
    outstanding initiatives. In fiscal year 2005, we supported 1.2 million
    TRICARE Prime enrollees and over 66,000 TRICARE Plus enrollees
    throughout the world. Currently, we have 19 Air Force hospitals and
    medical centers and 56 clinics. We would like to share some of our home
    station clinical successes.
        As you well know, the Family Advocacy Program's purpose is to
    prevent and treat family maltreatment. Mrs. Mary Fran Williamson, a
    civilian Family Advocacy Nurse at Offutt AFB, led the development of
    nursing practice guidelines to use for the care of family maltreatment
    cases and in the prevention of abuse. These guidelines recommend
    appropriate nursing interventions and were incorporated into the Air
    Force Parent Support Program, accessible via the internet-based Family
    Advocacy website.
        Our partners in the Reserves spearheaded the first-ever DOD-wide
    video teleconference on Sexual Assault Answer. Lt Col Susan Hanshaw, a
    Reserve nurse assigned to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
    (AFIP), serves as the consultant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense
    for Health Affairs. In this role, she co-authored the DOD policy for
    sexual assault and directed the AFIP-sponsored Sexual Assault Response
    Team (SART) Training Program.
        In one of our overseas locations, at Kaiserslautern Military
    Community (KMC), Germany, they are overhauling their primary care
    services. A unique feature of this endeavor is the establishment of a
    Women's Health Center, spearheaded by a Women's Health Nurse
    Practitioner, Major Elizabeth Decker. The goal of the Center is to
    improve access to care for women throughout the KMC, including active
    duty, dependents, DOD's teachers and civilian contractors. One
    highlight will be a specially designed ``Comfort Room'', specifically
    to support sexually assaulted victims. It will provide a soothing
    environment away from the emergency room for privacy and counseling.
        On another continent, Independent Duty Medical Technicians (IDMTs),
    TSgt Steven Yates and TSgt John Strothenke from Eielson AFB, Alaska
    deployed in support of the Joint POW/MIA Account Command (JPAC)
    mission, which recovered the remains of 19 service members in the last
    calendar year. In addition, IDMTs supported forward-stationed
    detachments in Laos, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia by providing
    influenza vaccines, conducting Self Aid and Buddy Care classes, and
    giving Avian Flu awareness briefings. JPAC IDMTs assisted active duty
    physicians in Laos and Cambodia in conducting Medical Civic Action
    Programs (MEDCAP) for local villagers assessing and treating a wide
    variety of jungle ailments.
        As the Department of Defense expanded its global reach, it became
    evident that understanding other cultures and languages is paramount.
    For several years, the Air Force Nurse Corps supported the development
    of cultural awareness and linguistic expertise through various
    humanitarian relief and military operations. Through the International
    Health Specialist (IHS) Program we gained access to countries that are
    otherwise somewhat inaccessible. Major Stephanie Buffet, an IHS nurse,
    currently working for the CENTCOM Surgeon General, played a pivotal
    role in the Air Force's response to medical issues in the ongoing
    Pakistan earthquake relief efforts. She advised the Task Force
    commanders on building healthcare capacity with the Pakistan medical
    system and served as a liaison with the civilian and host nation
    response agencies.
        A1C Stella Bernard, a medical technician in the Pediatric Clinic,
    from the 9th Medical Operations Squadron, Beale AFB CA, was a member of
    a 13-person medical team sent to Asuncion, Paraguay. She served as a
    Spanish interpreter as well as a medic. During their 10-day mission
    over 7,800 Paraguayans were treated with medical, dental, and
    preventive health services. A1C Bernard described this experience as
    ``priceless''.
        Lt Col Diep Duong, a graduate of an AF-sponsored doctorate degree,
    directly supported multiple international medical missions. She
    established personal and professional relationships with senior medical
    leaders and U.S. defense attaches in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. She
    led a 5-member multi-service medical team to Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Team
    members screened and treated 1,205 patients, delivered six babies,
    completed 263 prenatal visits, filled 2,378 prescriptions and
    distributed over 2,000 bed nets. An important component of this mission
    was collaboration between the United States, Cambodian and Cham Muslim
    health care providers to ensure appropriate and culturally sensitive
    delivery of health services to local women and children.
        Air Force Nursing Services made an impact at the national-level as
    well. In May 2005, the American Association of Critical Care Nurses
    (AACN) recognized the CCATT nurses at the 59th Medical Wing for
    Excellence in Clinical Practice, Non-Traditional Setting. This award
    reflects the contributions of the entire team from the field medic to
    the tertiary care centers. In March 2006, the American Academy of
    Ambulatory Care Nurses presented national level awards to two AF nurses
    at their annual conference. Major Christine Taylor, from Dyess AFB won
    the Outstanding Nurse/Clinical Excellence Award and Lt Col Carol
    Andrews, from Randolph AFB won the Outstanding Nurse/Administrative
    Excellence Award. The Air Force Affiliate of the National Nursing Staff
    Development Organization (NNSDO) was awarded the prestigious NNSDO 2005
    Affiliate Excellence in Quality Program and competed as a finalist for
    the Chief of Staff Team Excellence Award.
        Our influence is also evident at the state level. A clinical nurse,
    Captain James Gabriel, received the Governor's Alaska Council on
    Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Award/Melissa Ann Peters Memorial
    Award. He orchestrated a benchmark Emergency Medical Technician (EMT)
    training program, which is now a model for the Interior Alaska Region
    Emergency Medical Council. Lt Col Roseanne Warner, a Family Nurse
    Practitioner from Cannon AFB, was the recipient of the American Academy
    of Nurse Practitioners New Mexico State Award for Excellence.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        As you can see, Air Force Nursing Services is globally engaged,
    making recruiting and retaining nurses one of our top priorities
    especially with the national nursing shortage. On the civilian-nursing
    front, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that jobs for registered
    nurses will grow 23 percent by 2008. Nurses are entering the workforce
    at an older age with new graduates averaging 31 years old.

                               SKILL SUSTAINMENT

        Col Florence Valley, Chief Nurse at the 332nd Expeditionary Medical
    Group, Balad AB, Iraq, stated, ``when the Air Force Nurse Corps goes to
    war it brings inpatient nursing and aeromedical evacuation skills.
    These are our primary contributions to the war fighter.'' Great strides
    have been made to ease the transition from home station to warfront
    nursing care. For example, Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) and the
    Air Force Theater Hospital (AFTH) in Balad have similar nursing
    requirements, which minimizes spin-up time. We credit this to the
    nurses' current inpatient care experience and to the continuous
    improvement of pre-deployment training.
        I agree that the best way for nurses to maintain currency and to be
    effective in deployed settings is to have recent hands-on experience as
    inpatient clinical nurses. Maintaining our basic technical skills while
    working in areas where the skills are not used regularly, led to an
    updated policy on nurse utilization. Recently, I released a policy
    mandating that nurses working in outpatient and non-clinical roles will
    be required to complete a minimum of 168 hours annually on the
    inpatient units annually to maintain their skills. We believe that
    bringing seasoned clinicians back to the bedside will not only provide
    a more robust technically-ready force, but will also provide a setting
    of mentorship for our less experienced nurses.
        Our senior leaders are already engaged, emphasizing clinical
    operational currency and expertise. Numerous VA Training Affiliation
    Agreements (TAAs) allow nurses to rotate to inpatient wards,
    maintaining their clinical skills. According to Lt Col Martha Johnston,
    Chief Nurse at the 377 MDG at Kirtland AFB, ``The nurses love it!'' The
    377 MDG plans to expand the program to include the aerospace medical
    technicians.
        Due to the unique missions at Balad, WHMC added the Defense Medical
    Readiness Training Institute's (DMRTI) Emergency War Surgery Course to
    their pre-deployment training to familiarize nurses with Balad-specific
    surgical procedures and care. Additionally, the nursing staff attends
    the Emergency Nurse's Association's Trauma Nurse Core Course (TNCC),
    which standardizes the approach to patient assessments. Finally, WHMC
    nurses attend a burn management course at BAMC.
        The criticality of patients seen in deployed areas significantly
    changed our definition of skills sustainment training requirements. To
    meet the needs of our deploying nurses, we are increasingly using the
    Center for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills (C-STARS)
    training platform. The goal of C-STARS is to produce medics ready to
    respond to any peacetime or wartime contingency through intense
    clinical immersion. Training is augmented by participation in trauma
    scenarios based on actual wartime medical missions using high-tech
    human patient simulators programmed to respond realistically to medical
    care. Not surprisingly, nurses who attend advanced training platforms
    such as C-STARS report an easier transition to the deployed
    environment. One of our deployed nurse anesthetists, Major Brent
    Mitchell believed that without C-STARS training, he wouldn't have been
    nearly as effective.
        The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS)
    Graduate School of Nursing (GSN) Master Programs developed academic
    initiatives for the enhancement of ``Go-to-War'' Skill Sets of Advanced
    Practice Nurse. Some of these courses include Advanced Trauma Care for
    Nurses (ATCN), preparing students to function in operational
    environments and a Registered Nurse Surgical First Assistant,
    optimizing surgical outcomes.
        The GSN Masters Program 2005 fall enrollment was at an all time
    high of 140 students. Over the past twelve years, Air Force nurses
    comprised 41 percent of the overall enrollment and specifically
    contributed to 43 percent of the Peri-Operative Clinical Nurse
    Specialist track. Since 1996, 62 percent of the CRNAs were Air Force
    graduates and we are proud that our Nurse Anesthetists once again had a
    100 percent pass rate on the National Certification Exam. The three Air
    Force Doctoral Studies students are currently preparing for qualifying
    exams and grant proposals. Colonel Lela Holden, a part time doctoral
    student, is also moving into the dissertation phase of her program.

                                    RESEARCH

        Air Force nurses continue to remain at the forefront of operational
    research. Their work expands the state of nursing science for military
    clinical practice and infuses research into evidence-based practice. Lt
    Col Laurie McMullan, a nurse anesthetist forward deployed with the 447
    EMEDS, employed the findings of a Navy research article on the ``Effect
    of Needle Size on Success of Transarterial Block''. She performed this
    short-needle regional anesthetic block on five Army soldiers requiring
    upper extremity surgical procedures, offering alternative anesthesia
    with a successful post-operative pain relief. We thank the Navy for
    their research, which allowed this Air Force nurse anesthetist to
    provide outstanding combat anesthesia to Army soldiers.
        Other crucial areas of research being examined by Air Force nurses
    include Deployment Health, Sustaining Competencies, Military Practice
    Outcomes and Recruitment & Retention. Lieutenant Colonel Theresa
    Dremsa, a nurse at WHMC, is one of the Air Force's leading operational
    researchers and her current focus is to measure CCATT nurses'
    preparation for deployment. Her study examines the experiential
    knowledge of CCATT nurses in the care of critically ill or injured
    patients in a high-risk deployed setting. The results will be used to
    guide clinical practice in the future.
        As large numbers of deployed members return home we must remain
    adequately prepared to help these veterans and their families with
    reintegration. Though return from deployment can be a happy occasion,
    homecoming can turn into a stressful event for troops and their
    families who are not alert to the impact of changes that occurred
    during separation. Unidentified and untreated PTSD puts them at higher
    danger for maladaptive responses to stress such as alcoholism and
    domestic violence. Colonel Deborah Messecar, from the Portland ANG, is
    conducting a study to explore the experiences of ANG military families
    with reintegration and identify resources and strategies to assist
    them.
        Disasters around the world over the past year have also emphasized
    the need to find ways to help affected military families. Research by
    Colonel John Murray, Consultant to the Air Force Surgeon General for
    Nursing Research, helped explain the consequences of disasters on
    children and provided the field with a framework to guide further
    research and clinical practice.

                                 OUR WAY AHEAD

        Several major events continue to shape our future. The Air Force
    transitioned to an expeditionary mission and now deliberately prepares
    our Airmen through aggressive Force Development policies and programs.
    In his 2004 letter ``Developing Expeditionary Medics--A Flight Path,''
    former CSAF, Gen John Jumper tasked the AF SG to ``complete a
    comprehensive review of the medical group structure for our garrisoned
    and expeditionary medical groups.'' We have since developed a new
    Flight Path to guide our organizational structure and the development
    of our clinical discipline. The Flight Path guides more deliberate
    development for Nursing Services, placing the member in the right job
    at the right time, setting them up for career success and personal
    satisfaction while maintaining expertise at the frontlines of patient
    care.
        The results of the BRAC mark a dramatic shift in DOD and Air Force
    healthcare capitalizing on multi-service markets, joint and interagency
    facility use, and civilian healthcare agreements. Air Force Nursing
    Services is already preparing for the many BRAC-related challenges by
    finding alternate inpatient platforms to train and sustain nursing
    personnel and by determining the right composition of active duty
    ``blue suit'' nursing requirements. We continue to evaluate our bottom-
    line deployment-driven Critical Operational Readiness Requirements
    (CORR) and use market availability along with cost data to recommend
    appropriate civilian conversions. The Nurse Corps plans to target
    company grade outpatient and maternal-child care positions for
    potential conversion while maintaining active duty nurses for inpatient
    platforms and other key career development positions.
        Along these lines, the results of the 2001 Air Force Surgeon
    General-directed Nurse Corps Top Down Grade Review (TDGR) continue to
    guide our actions as we strive to balance our company grade and field
    grade authorizations. We remain optimistic that our course of action
    will help improve overall promotion opportunity therefore increasing
    the retention of our experienced nurses. We've successfully increased
    field grade requirements for deploying nurses and are taking steps to
    lay-in more senior clinicians at home station.
        Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, it is
    an honor and a privilege to lead the men and women of our active,
    reserve and guard Nursing Services. My objective for this presentation
    was to provide you with a glimpse of the extraordinary men and women
    that make up Nursing Services and the exceptional work they are doing
    daily in the service of their country. I look to the future
    optimistically and desire your continued support during the exciting
    times ahead for nursing and our Air Force. Thank you for inviting me to
    tell our story.

        Senator Stevens. I thank you very much for your statements.
    I'm a little bit hesitant to ask questions, in view that I'm
    sitting here with the father and mother of the nursing corps of
    the Department of Defense. So they really have put in a lot of
    time, and, I must admit, a great deal more than I have. I do
    want to ask a couple of questions, though. I'm told the Army is
    short about 320 nurses. And you've heard, I believe, the
    conversation we had with the prior panel about the possibility
    that we might consider unification. Would unification help your
    corps at all? Would you tell me, General, and then Admiral and
    General?
        General Pollock. Yes, I think that a joint unified command
    would help us. It provides more opportunities for the nurse
    corps officers because of the different platforms that we do
    have across the services. And it will also, I believe, be a
    retention tool, because there are times during our career that
    there are issues with our other families, our nonmilitary
    families, our families of origin, our siblings, where we feel a
    need to be closer to those families. By expanding the
    assignment locations, we would be able to offer them more
    variety across the Nation for locations, and then also retain
    them.
        Senator Stevens. I know some women that I've talked to in
    the past don't like to fly. Others would not want to serve on a
    ship. Would unification give you problems with regard to the
    platforms that they might have to work on?
        General Pollock. If I were in charge of planning it? No,
    sir. Because I think that we've chosen a particular uniform.
    And that would be our first emotional obligation, was to the
    organization that we had started with. But by giving people
    some flexibility, our younger staff are often very curious, and
    they're looking for new experiences in new locations. And
    having that as an option, not a mandate, would help us.
        Senator Stevens. Admiral.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Thank you, sir. Yes, I think nurses,
    historically, have been able to informally make sure that the
    kinds of training and the kinds of experiences they need across
    the services and with our other agencies--in particular, with
    the VA and the public health--have always helped us to sustain,
    maintain, and grow. Having a unified medical command brings
    down the walls that help us to do that in a more effective and
    efficient way. I often say that the best retention tool I could
    have would be offering orders to Tripler to my Navy nurses.
        I'm the first one in line to get a set of those orders.
        So, absolutely, I think the possibilities for us, as corps
    chiefs and for all of our nurses, would be greatly enhanced by
    a unified medical command.
        Senator Stevens. General Rank.
        General Rank. Sir, I mentioned in my testimony that there
    are already opportunities where we are side by side together.
    We are at Landstuhl with the Army. They are in Balad with us.
    And we have continued to offer, where they are short; and they
    have offered to us, where we are short, to work side by side in
    our inpatient platforms where we are critically manned.
        We are on an Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) cycle of 120
    days, where we go to the U.S. Central Command Area of
    Responsibility. I, like my sister from the Navy, would love to
    be able to keep our unit type code (UTC) together, but find
    platforms in the Army and the Navy that keep us current. I
    would love to lay nurses into places like Balboa and into
    Tripler. We are working, already, on that endeavor, with Walter
    Reed. And, as I mentioned before, we already have laid in staff
    for Landstuhl, with an Air Force chief nurse working side by
    side with the Army.
        We are doctrinally different, and we train for care in the
    air, and we train for contingency air medical staging flight
    support. The Navy and the Army also are doctrinally different.
    But I think that we can work through all of our clinical
    platforms side by side, green, black, and blue together, and
    know what our heritage was, and work together with our heritage
    still blue, black, and green.
        Senator Stevens. I hesitate to ask this--I'm the father of
    three sons and three daughters, so I would ask it advisedly--
    has there been any reluctance on the part of nurses to be
    deployed into the war zone?
        General.
        General Pollock. I think there's reluctance always to have
    new experience. And certainly that is one that they know is
    very intense. I think that they're more concerned about the
    length of time that they're deployed, sir, because what they do
    is different than what the infantry and the armor and the other
    military members do, because each day that the nurses and
    medics and physicians are serving in those combat hospitals,
    every day they're dealing with an injured soldier or marine or
    airman or sailor. They don't have any relief from that. And as
    they express it to me, ``Ma'am, we're willing to go. We know
    they need our help, and we want to be there. But a year is just
    wearing us down.'' So, I don't think that it's their--that
    they're afraid to go, because once they're there, they
    understand how valued they are by that community and how their
    loving and touching hands make a huge difference, but the
    duration of time that we're asking them to go now is really
    very, very hard on them.
        Senator Stevens. Have there been more deployments from any
    one of the services, as opposed to the other, into the war
    zone? Which of your services have sent more nurses into the war
    zone?
        General Pollock. Sir, I would say that the Army has--we--
    we're the primary ground force. It's been a ground operation.
    We have had some support from both the Air Force and the Navy,
    but the majority of work is being done by the Army nurses.
        Senator Stevens. Here again, unification might give you a
    larger reservoir of people to rotate, correct?
        General Pollock. I would be very grateful if we were able
    to balance the rotations among all of the specialists that are
    required, so that people did not need to deploy a second time,
    until they knew that their colleagues that had the same
    competency and same skills had also deployed.
        Senator Stevens. Admiral----
        General Pollock. That would be a huge morale booster.
        Senator Stevens. Pardon me. Admiral, what's your feeling?
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Well, I'd like to agree that the
    Army has given us the largest volume of nurses in the
    battlefield. Navy nurses have--however, if you recall, are with
    the marines, as well as with our fleet, so our--although not
    always in war, they are with our sailors and marines throughout
    the year in many short-term deployments, as well. I'd like to
    illustrate it simply with a phone call that I made about 2
    weeks ago. I was told that one of our Navy nurses is in Iraq
    and was injured by some shrapnel, not seriously, thank the
    Lord. When I talked to her, via telephone in Iraq, she was able
    to convey to me how important it was that she be where she was.
    She's the mother of five children, and a husband who's Active
    duty, as well. She had been offered, immediately after her
    treatment, and was offered by myself, to come home, and she
    said, without quivering, ``Absolutely not.''
        I will tell you that everywhere I go, our Navy nurses want
    desperately to serve with our marines and with our sailors.
    That's why we put the uniform on, that's why we are here. Do we
    like being away from our families for a year? Absolutely not.
    Do we understand why that is an important thing that we do?
    Absolutely.
        Senator Stevens. General.
        General Rank. As our personnel get ready to deploy, there
    is trepidation. It's trepidation about leaving the known,
    trepidation about what--how safe they'll be while they're
    there, trepidation about leaving their family behind. But there
    hasn't been a single nurse or medical technician that hasn't
    returned and provided an account to me in our Nightingale News
    every week when we put out our updates to what's happening in
    the nursing services that when we ask anyone, ``What was the
    highlight of your career?'' they tell us, ``It was when we
    deployed. It was when we were far forward. It was taking care
    of the injured.'' So, they do return rejuvenated and--with what
    they've just done, and it is their most memorable experience.
        In 2003, 407 of our nurses deployed; in 2004, 261; and in
    2005, it was 394. Our inventory is 3,675. Only 11 percent of
    our nurses have been able to go to the U.S. Central Command
    Area of Responsibility. Granted, some of these skills are high-
    demand, low-density, but there is not a nurse, as I move
    through the Medical Treatment Facility (MTF), that doesn't say
    to me, ``I want to deploy, and I'm ready to deploy.'' And we
    have laid in, in our UTCs, as I mentioned in the testimony,
    more seniority, so that it's not just our captains going, over
    and over again; now our majors can go, and now our lieutenant
    colonels can go.
        And I would say of our relationship together, give us a
    mission, give us one of your missions, like we are doing in
    Balad, and we will do that mission, and stand proud to do that
    total mission.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you all very much. I have
    another appointment. I'm going to ask the co-chairman if he
    will continue this hearing.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye [presiding]. Thank you very much.
        All of the services have not been able to meet their
    recruiting goals. And I think that's understandable, because
    the nursing shortage is a national problem. I just read the
    report of the American Association of Colleges and Nursing that
    reported last year there was an increase in enrollment for
    entry-level baccalaureate programs in nursing, by 14 percent;
    however, at the same time, they turned away 32,000 qualified
    applicants. With that, we won't be able to solve the problem.
    Do you have any suggestions as to anything we, in the Congress,
    can do to work on this national shortage?
        General Pollock.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. I think that one of the most
    important things that we all need to recognize is the
    importance of the role of the nurse. We need to market the
    expertise, the care at the bedside, the care of family that is
    unique to the profession of nursing. You do not see that in
    other types of care. I think they need to be incentivized to be
    able to make that a profession, as well as a part of a
    lifestyle for those wanting to raise a family or to get an
    education and further their careers.
        This year, in the Navy, we have instituted as many of the
    opportunities afforded to us with our loan repayment programs,
    but, most importantly, we have pipeline programs within the
    Navy, so that we give an opportunity to our enlisted staff to
    become nurses, and we are depending more and more on that
    population for the health and the breadth of the Navy Nurse
    Corps. I believe that our direct accessions in the future need
    to be more pointed toward those with specialties, as opposed to
    our new graduates. Again, when you look at the wartime skill
    sets, we don't train enough critical care nurses, we don't
    train enough perioperative nurses. I need to bring them in, I
    need to get them hitting the deck, and I need to get them
    providing that kind of care as quickly as possible. So, we need
    to be able to incentivize bringing in nurses with more
    seniority in the civilian practice, rather than those who are
    looking at this as a future, as a new graduate.
        Senator Inouye. General Pollock.
        General Pollock. Thank you, sir.
        I think that the profession of nursing continues to
    struggle, because they've not completed a transition that was
    started in the early 1970s. Other professions are recognized
    for their college entry into that profession. And until nursing
    across the Nation completes that transition, which it started
    then, we will continue to not be well recognized as
    professionals. And with the opportunity that men and women have
    now, they're selecting professions that will provide a better
    lifestyle and a better income for their families. So, dealing
    with the lack of respect that nurses have in the Nation is an
    integral step to solving the nursing shortage.
        Another piece is the low salary and high demands that are
    placed on the faculty members at the universities, because when
    people have an option of being a faculty member or working in
    another facility as a nursing executive, because they're
    master's or Ph.D. prepared, very few are opting to take that
    lower salary, that lower respect afford in the academic
    community. They're selecting where they can lead and mentor
    nurses in other areas.
        Those issues must be addressed nationwide in order for us
    to be successful in the future as nurses.
        Senator Inouye. General Rank.
        General Rank. General Pollock and Admiral Bruzek-Kohler
    just said everything I was about to say. I would ask, Senator,
    if there is any way for us to establish more publicity for
    healthcare careers at the health affairs and congressional
    levels. That would certainly help, beyond a recruiting effort,
    to bring some of the nurses to us. But I ditto what my
    colleagues have said about the nursing shortage, in that it's
    pervasive and carries over into our services.
        General Pollock. Sir, I'd like to make one more comment
    about that and the need that we will have for those educated
    nurses with entry at a baccalaureate and proceeding on for a
    master's and Ph.D. work. The research over the last 5 years
    strongly indicates that patient safety and patient outcomes are
    far better the higher the education level of that nurse that's
    caring for them. So, as we look at the needs and the complexity
    of the patients that are presenting now, it becomes even more
    critical that we address the failure of the universities to be
    able to bring in the faculty that they need so that we can care
    for the citizens of our country.
        Senator Inouye. I've always contended that pay plays an
    important role in recruiting. It's a fact of life. And there's
    another factor, in this case, where the nursing profession
    appears to be female-dominated. And this is a man's world,
    unfortunately. And the male gets a better pay scale than the
    woman. Now, in the civilian nursing community, there are not
    too many men working as nurses. What is the proportion, in the
    Army, of men?
        General Pollock. Sir, the Army Nurse Corps is 32 percent
    male, compared to less than 5 percent in the civilian
    community.
        Senator Inouye. And for the Navy?
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Thirty-seven percent, sir.
        General Rank. Twenty-five percent male, sir.
        Senator Inouye. What can we do to encourage more male
    participants in the nursing programs? Because then the pay
    scale will go up?
        Those are the facts.
        General Pollock. I think that some of the public-service
    announcements that have been done by Johnson&Johnson in their
    nursing advertisements across the Nation have been focusing on
    males. It's been relatively easy inside our organizations,
    because our enlisted soldiers, again, are primarily male. They
    see what military nurses do, and they make that commitment to
    then complete their education and be a member of one of our
    corps. So, getting more of the men out, which all of us are
    doing through our recruiting efforts, helps to let the other
    men in the communities know that may have been concerned,
    ``Gee, I'll only be such a small portion of the percentage of
    nurses,'' that there really are organizations in which they
    have a large place.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--or Mr. Acting
    Chairman. I don't know if that's a battlefield promotion you
    just got here today.
        You can see, from Senator Inouye's questions, why we just
    so admire him and the chair who's serving with him.
        Senator Inouye, you should know that not only is Maryland
    the home of medical medicine, but two of our generals graduated
    from the University of Maryland School of Nursing. And----
        Senator Inouye. Oh, really?
        Senator Mikulski. General Kohler, I guess we have to give
    you an honorary something-or-other.
        And General Rank actually was born in Frostburg, Maryland,
    Garrett County, the Switzerland of Maryland. So, there is
    something----
        General Rank. Allegheny.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Excuse me--Allegheny--there
    is something that's a magnet here.
        I'd like to pick up on the nurse education issue that
    Senator Inouye raised. And the point that he made, all of the
    issues about attracting people to the career of nursing are
    right--respect, pay, et cetera. But I have a little advisory
    board of the nine deans of nursing of the 4-year programs in
    Maryland, the dean of the University of Maryland and Johns
    Hopkins, and then other 4-year programs. And what they, of
    course, tell me is, they are now turning away--the issue of not
    being interested is no longer so--they're now turning away
    people who want to come to nursing. They identify the lack of
    graduate faculty and the lack of clinical training
    opportunities, the hands-on that, of course, is the hallmark of
    the field.
        And I think this is a national crisis. We have the civilian
    crisis, which would transfer to your ability, because you're in
    a war for talent, in addition to the global war on terrorism,
    so you're going to the same pool, so it's magnified for all of
    the stresses that you've just said. So, my question is: What is
    the role of the military? Because when we want to do an intense
    program, we tend to do it. What is it we could do? Do you think
    we could be looking at focusing on training, getting ready for
    some special accelerated or expanded program to get people to
    go to graduate school, with the understanding that they would
    go into nursing education? Should we use USUHS? Should that be
    the military academy for nursing educators to then train
    nurses? Should we expand the USUHS model? Should--you know, we
    graduate about 1,000 midshipmen; how do we graduate 300 to 500
    nurses a year? And is USUHS one of the ways of doing this? And
    also to take out of, as you said, the pipeline, some of your
    really talented people who want to make not only military a
    career, but as they transit, say, from battlefield or TRICARE,
    they would love to be nursing educators. What's your thoughts
    on that? Is USUHS something, or are there other linkages that
    the military could have with our civilian sector for nursing
    education? And should our military bases and military medicine
    be the source of clinical opportunities for people? So--you
    tend to go with what you know--so, if your clinical is at
    Maryland or Mercy Hospital, you tend to stay there, almost like
    the so-called 3-year girls. You remember that. And--but if they
    were in the military, that would also be part of your
    attraction, the way General Taylor and others talked about
    recruiting. What do you think? Or am I off the wall here?
        General Pollock. In the past, ma'am, the Army Nurse Corps
    had run a full baccalaureate program. That program was closed
    in 1978. That was the Walter Reed Army Institute of Nursing
    Program. At current strengths, I would not be able to manage
    that mission and do the other missions that we have, both at
    home and around the world.
        Until we're able to figure out where we can draw the
    faculty from, even if USUHS was willing----
        Senator Mikulski. What I'm asking you----
        General Pollock [continuing]. We wouldn't be able----
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Where could we play a role
    in developing the faculty to then expand it, where we keep--
    unless we crack the faculty problem, both in the civilian and
    in the military sector--and I'm looking at cracking it from the
    military standpoint, that the military would have its own
    faculty cadre----
        General Pollock. Ma'am, I've had a Strategic Issues Working
    Group working on the education piece for me. What I'd like to
    do is provide you a written response of----
        Senator Mikulski. Good, why don't we do that.
        General Pollock [continuing]. Recommendation----
        [The information follows:]

        Each year, thousands are denied entry into baccalaureate nursing
    programs due to faculty shortages. The fiscal year 2005 National
    Defense Authorization Act recommended the creation of a Nurse Officers
    to Educators Program to address this issue. A complicating factor
    related to this issue is a concomitant national shortage of nursing
    faculty. A 2005 American Association of Colleges of Nursing survey
    reported 817 faculty vacancies nationwide, with 77 percent of those
    positions requiring both classroom and clinical teaching. The study
    also reported that many schools are not hiring against these vacancies
    due to budget problems. The Army recommends that the three military
    Nurse Corps serve as members of a working group to identify solutions
    to this national crisis.

        Senator Mikulski. Do the other Generals have a comment on
    this? And I'm trying to think out of the box, but I don't want
    to get myself into a new box----
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. You know.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. I think there are--there are many
    innovative ways to approach exactly what you're asking for. And
    I agree with General Pollock that we need an opportunity to sit
    together and provide you some background on the pros and cons
    to many of those. But you did mention the clinical rotations,
    and that is one of the major factors. I've spoken with the dean
    of Marymount not too long ago, and that was one of her biggest
    concerns, that she was not able to get enough faculty--clinical
    faculty working in an institution to train her graduate
    students. So, I think one of the things that we need to work
    more on, along with our sister service and the VA, is to
    determine ways that we can better link up our clinical
    institutions with the surrounding schools of nursing to make
    sure that we're giving them enough opportunity. Because
    sometimes it's just a matter of not knowing the need. We have
    nurse practitioners in most of our ambulatory care clinics. I
    know for a fact that my nurse practitioners would love to be a
    mentor to a graduate student who was going on to become a nurse
    practitioner.
        So, I think if we have the opportunity to provide you with
    some more information, we may come up with some good activities
    for you.
        [The information follows:]

        On an annual basis, the Navy Nurse Corps shapes our
    graduate education training plan based on our health care and
    operational mission support requirements. Approximately 50
    Nurse Corps officers graduate with a Master of Science degree
    in Nursing from accredited universities each year. On average,
    one to two Nurse Corps Officers graduates each year with
    Doctoral Degrees. These Nurse Corps Officers are eligible to
    serve as faculty in our universities and Schools of Nursing
    while on Active Duty, and upon retirement. Eighty-eight percent
    of our Active Duty Nurse Corps Officers with Doctoral degrees
    serve as faculty after normal working hours. Currently 100
    percent of our most recently retired Nurse Corps Officers with
    Doctoral degrees fill faculty positions in national
    universities. The majority of Nurse Corps officers with a
    Master of Science degree in Nursing do not pursue faculty roles
    in Nursing Education for a variety of reasons. These reasons
    are in alignment with current literature related to nursing
    faculty shortages. Navy Medicine currently has a Nurse Corps
    Leader who serves as the military liaison to the Maryland
    Statewide Commission on the Crisis in Nursing.
        Other opportunities to promote and encourage our nurses to
    become involved in faculty roles are available in our Military
    Treatment Facilities (MTF). The Nursing Internship Programs
    utilize our Bachelor's and Master's degree Nurse Corps Officers
    as clinical instructors to orient recent graduates and
    Registered Nurses with minimal clinical experience to the
    profession of nursing. A large percentage of our MTFs and staff
    are involved with undergraduate and graduate Schools of Nursing
    as preceptors and clinical consultants to grow the next
    generation of nurses.
        Many of our Nurse Corps Officers are members and elected
    officials of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of
    Nursing in affiliation with their local chapters in support of
    leadership and scholarship practice. Members are provided
    resources which encourage advanced practice, academia,
    administration and research.
        At the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences
    (USU) in Bethesda, Maryland, several of our Navy Nurse Corps
    Officers serve as faculty in the graduate programs for
    perioperative nursing, family nurse practitioner and certified
    registered nurse anesthetists. USU is experiencing faculty
    shortages in light of meeting our primary mission involving the
    Global War on Terrorism. Presently, the civilian schools of
    nursing meet our quotas for undergraduate accessions and
    graduate and post graduate programs. Navy Medicine recommends
    expanding the Army's Strategic Issues Working Group into a Tri-
    Service working group as a subcommittee of the Federal Nursing
    Services Council. It's mission would include opportunities for
    the services to collaborate with civilian schools of nursing to
    positively impact the issue of the national nursing faculty
    shortage.
        The issues involving the national nursing faculty shortage
    are very complex and multi-layered such as aging faculty,
    faculty salaries and mentoring programs for new faculty. The
    Navy Nurse Corps is committed to continuing to explore
    opportunities that would maximize the use of existing resources
    along with our sister Services and Federal agencies to map the
    future for the nursing profession.

        Senator Mikulski. And one of the things that sometimes
    happens in a clinical situation is, the person who is the
    clinical supervisor, in addition, say, you know, at Mercy
    Hospital with Marymount, or Mercy Hospital with Maryland, they
    can have an adjunct faculty status.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. They like that.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Absolutely.
        Senator Mikulski. They just like it. It's part of the
    attraction, as you said, and it's part of that family, ``Well,
    you know, we're military nurses,'' and, ``Mom does this,'' and,
    ``Mom's on the faculty,'' or, ``Dad's on the faculty.''
        The other is the promotion within--not the promotion, but
    the recruitment within, the corpsman who might want to go to
    nursing school. Like Senator Inouye said, the guys getting into
    nursing. Are there ways that we could enhance it? In other
    words, they've signed up for the military. They've signed up
    for the military lifestyle, and so has their family. So,
    there's nothing new here. But the opportunity to move within,
    is this something that we should look at, enhance, expand, help
    you have other tools----
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Yes, to----
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Financial resources?
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler [continuing]. All the above. Yes, to
    all the above. It is the lifeblood of our nursing services for
    the Navy. We have the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC)--
    Navy ROTC program, the STA-21, which is seaman to admiral
    program, the Medical Enlisted Commissioning Program (MECP)
    enlisted program. And without those programs, we would never
    meet our accession goals. They really give us the strength and
    breadth of our nurses for the future. And these are people who
    are committed to the Navy. They are not always our corpsmen,
    they are, across the board, our best and brightest, who want to
    become a nurse, and go through these programs, and then commit
    to a long term in the corps. So, we are looking at increasing,
    in all of those programs, the number of available seats for
    next year. We hope that we can continue to increase those
    numbers.
        Senator Mikulski. You mean, somebody right now who might be
    working as a medical librarian or in another area in the
    military wants to come into nursing.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Someone maybe on a ship right as a
    cyto----
        Senator Mikulski. Cytologist?
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler [continuing]. A cryptotech--a
    cryptotech, nonmedically related at all, but had a desire all
    along to be a Navy nurse, applies to the program, meets the
    requirements, and is selected, and will become a Navy nurse.
        Senator Mikulski. General Rank, did you want to say
    anything?
        General Rank. Ma'am, in preparing for testimony, I found an
    interesting fact about our enlisted corps: 24 percent of our
    nurses in the Air Force were prior enlisted; 8 percent came
    from the Air Force and 16 percent from the Army and the Navy.
        Senator Mikulski. See? They're there. They're there in the
    military, and they've embraced it. You know, there is a saying,
    ``Mine where there is gold,'' ``Drill where there is oil, as
    long as it's not off the coast of Ocean City.''
        And----
        General Pollock. Ma'am?
        Senator Mikulski. I just think that this offers
    opportunities, but they still have to go somewhere to school.
    And see what we can do about that. I'd like to have further
    conversations or written materials on it.
        The last thing is, has the debt repayment programs made a
    difference? The reason I like debt repayment is, it means
    you've already got yourself through school--you know, you start
    nursing, it might not be for you. So, it means you've not only
    finished it, but you've passed the boards, you know, you're
    ready to go. Has this worked?
        General Pollock. Yes, ma'am.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. Do you like it better than scholarships,
    or you need a mix?
        General Pollock. I'd like both. We have a population that
    likes options and wants alternatives. So, knowing that we can
    offer some--it's almost a cafeteria plan, some of this and some
    of this--is really helpful.
        Ma'am, I'd like to provide one other piece of information
    about our enlisted commissioning program. This year, we funded
    75 soldiers to complete their baccalaureate degree. So, in 2
    years, they'll be available for us. We had 125 applicants, and
    122 of them met all criteria. So, as----
        Senator Mikulski. And why did you only do 75? Is that all
    the money you had?
        General Pollock. Yes, sir--yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, Senator Inouye, this might be where
    our biggest pool is for recruitment. And we should look at what
    the levels are there and welcome thoughts about how maybe----
        General Pollock. General Kiley----
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. This is----
        General Pollock [continuing]. Has been assisting us----
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. An existing pipeline.
        General Pollock [continuing]. In that----
        Senator Mikulski. Excuse me?
        General Pollock. Sorry. General Kiley has been assisting us
    to obtain more money for that, because he knew that we had
    those additional candidates ready to go.
        Senator Mikulski. But I bet we could go to each service,
    and that would be the case. Am I right, that you have now more
    than you can fund? But if we fund them, it's a pretty good bet
    that they'll finish----
        General Pollock. Oh, yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. And stay.
        General Pollock. Yes, ma'am.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Uh-huh.
        Senator Mikulski. Just one last thing. If, then, after they
    do that, are they still treated like a GS-5, or would they get
    an accelerated promotion?
        General Pollock. No, they're treated like officers, and
    they begin as second lieutenants, the way that the other new
    graduate nurses are begun.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. And it's very interesting, when you
    talk with them. The transition is there, clearly. And the
    longer you've been an enlisted person, the more of a
    transition. But once you become a nurse and you're practicing
    in the field that you've wanted to practice for a very long
    time, they are a Navy nurse. What is important is that
    experience as an enlisted--previously enlisted person is what
    we use then to help teach our other enlisted people, ``This is
    where I came from. This is what you can become.'' So, they
    become, again, a very good recruiting tool, as well as educator
    and mentor for our organization.
        General Rank. Ma'am, the other things I would add is the
    debt repayment program. We love it in the Air Force Nurse
    Corps, because it's a graduated nurse who has a license in her
    hand, and she can go right to work immediately. So, we really
    love that program. And I'm looking at my statistic, that we
    have 25 percent males, and 24 percent of our enlisted corps is
    enlisted. So, I'll have to look at those two to see if it's
    predominantly a male force that came up through the enlisted
    ranks and now is in our nurse corps.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, and, of course, then I hope that
    out of those that are already military nurses, we can think
    about how to help them become faculty, either in the academic
    sense of that word or in some way offer the clinical
    opportunities. And I'll bet it's going to be a bonanza for
    everybody.
        So, let's work together on it, but I think we can make a
    difference. You already are making a difference. And thank you
    very much.
        Senator Inouye. This has been a very interesting
    discussion. And while listening to all of you, I couldn't help
    but recall that a few years ago we decided that cancer was a
    major scourge. And, as a result, the Government and the
    Congress established special subsidy programs for medical
    schools to set up cancer centers for special studies. Now, I
    think the time has come to declare that the nursing shortage is
    a national crisis. And, if that's the case, we can do a lot of
    things that you have suggested, with proper funding from the
    Congress of the United States. It's just as much an emergency
    as we find in anything else. So, I thank you very much for your
    contribution.
        And, if I may, I'll use this for a personal note. Since
    April 1945, nurses have played important roles in my life. And
    I thank them for giving me the hope and the picture of the
    future, the good life. And I'm certain there are thousands, if
    not millions, of others who have spent time in hospitals who
    feel the same way.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Thank you, sir.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Inouye. Well, thank you all for your testimony.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

            Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

        Question. Have you modified the training you provide your Army
    medics and Navy Corpsmen and other military emergency care providers
    since hostilities began? What is your assessment of emergency care on
    the battlefield?
        Answer. The Army Medical Department has changed the training of
    Army medics based on lessons learned from Operation Enduring Freedom
    and Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have incorporated these changes into
    the Army's Initial Combat Medic training at Fort Sam Houston, Texas and
    at new Medical Simulation Training Centers at major Army installations.
    We have also used these lessons to train deploying physicians,
    physician assistants and nurses.
        Some examples of these changes including improving the medic's
    training in managing patients with hypothermia; the use of tourniquets
    and hemostatic agents as the primary means of controlling bleeding; the
    use of endotracheal intubation and nasopharyngeal airway for airway
    management; and training in medical support to detainee operations.
        Feedback on the quality and effectiveness of battlefield emergency
    care from returning units is very positive. The statistics of
    battlefield mortality are the lowest in any previous conflict in which
    our country has been involved. The major causes of death on the
    battlefield have remained unchanged since the Civil War. These are:
    penetrating head trauma, massive torso trauma, blast trauma, hemorrhage
    from extremity wounds, tension pneumothorax, and airway difficulty. Of
    these injuries, Combat Medics significantly impact extremity
    hemorrhage, tension pneumothorax, and airway difficulty. Based on data
    from Vietnam and trauma data from Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation
    Enduring Freedom, we employed new training methods that encompass the
    types of wounds and the danger of the combat environment.
        In addition to Soldier Medic training, the Army's Self-Aid/Buddy-
    Aid skills training for every Soldier has also been revised, also
    focusing on the preventable causes of death on the battlefield. A new
    Combat Lifesaver Course incorporates many of the principles used in
    training Combat Medics. The combination of these training programs
    allows more medical skills to be available on the battlefield to save
    Soldiers' lives.
        Question. How successful were you in meeting your mission
    recruiting goals for this past year? Are there any specialties that
    have seen a drastic decline in retention?
        Answer. The Army Medical Department and United States Army
    Recruiting Command (USAREC) had varying degrees of success in meeting
    our recruiting goals for fiscal year 2005. We achieved 99 percent of
    our Medical Corps goal, 84 percent of our Dental Corps goal, 100
    percent of our Medical Service Corps goal, 83 percent of our Army Nurse
    Corps goal, 110 percent of our Veterinary Corps and 151 percent of the
    Specialist Corps goal for individuals entering on to active duty. For
    the first time, we experienced difficulty in recruiting to 100 percent
    of our Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) allocations.
    USAREC is working hard to ensure that this is not the start of a trend.
        Retention of our fully trained force is a priority. While increases
    in incentives have helped, we still have retention challenges.
    Specifically, we are closely monitoring Anesthesiology, Pediatrics,
    Family Practice and Emergency Medicine. We have also seen a decline in
    Physician Assistants and all Nurse specialties.
        Question. What are you as a service doing to try and address these
    critical shortfalls? How do you carry out the medical mission at home
    and abroad with a decline in recruiting and retention of specialty
    medical personnel?
        Answer. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
    granted temporary Recruiting Incentives Authority for up to four new
    programs that should assist with the Army recruiting mission. One of
    these programs, the Recruiter Incentive Pay (RIP), will provide
    monetary incentives for AMEDD recruiters to exceed their missions. RIP
    has been approved and is expected to begin in June 2006, after the
    mandated 45-day waiting period.
        Another new program under review is the Officer Accession Bonus,
    which includes an additional monetary incentive for AMEDD applicants.
    This bonus would offer an immediate show of good faith and expedite the
    acceptance process. This program is expected to begin this summer or at
    the beginning of fiscal year 2007.
        Additionally, we are pursuing a critical skills retention bonus for
    the physician assistants. We are pursuing incentive special pay for
    certain nurse specialties. We increased the incentive special pay for
    nurse anesthetists. We are increasing the nurse accession bonus for
    fiscal year 2007. We are exploring the increase of special pays for
    dentists. We utilize professional officer filler information system
    (PROFIS) personnel to fill shortages/vacancies within deploying units.
    The TRICARE network as well as temporary contracts are then used to
    meet the beneficiary mission.
        Question. There is growing concern with how the Department monitors
    and addresses the emotional and mental health of each returning
    soldier, sailor, airman and Marine from combat. Can you each tell us
    how you are monitoring and treating those that are at risk for Post
    Traumatic Stress Disorder?
        Answer. The Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) and
    the Army Surgeon General (TSG) share responsibility for the prevention
    and screening for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for both active
    and reserve component Soldiers serving in the Global War on Terrorism
    (GWOT). The DCSPER is responsible for the Deployment Cycle Support
    Program (DCSP) aimed at Soldiers and family members and TSG has
    oversight of the Combat and Operational Stress Control (COSC) program
    aimed at Soldiers serving in GWOT. TSG also exercises command and
    control over behavioral health services at Army medical centers around
    the world providing treatment for Soldiers with PTSD.
        During pre-deployment, the DCSP provides extensive training to
    Soldiers and family members on the operational and combat stressors and
    ways and means to lessen the impact of deployment and traumatic events.
    DCSP resources available to Soldiers include buddy aid, leadership
    support, chaplaincy services, primary care and behavioral health
    services. Family members are instructed on their roles,
    responsibilities and ways and means by which they may cope more
    effectively, support their deploying Soldier and seek and receive
    support and professional assistance. Soldiers are also introduced to
    COSC concepts and resources to prepare for combat and operational
    stress. Medical and behavioral health personnel are positioned in
    theater for forward prevention and care, to do assessments of unit and
    Soldiers' behavioral health needs, to teach techniques for prevention
    or reduction of acute stress reactions and to help conserve the
    fighting strength of the force by providing short term problem focused
    behavioral healthcare.
        Prior to deployment Soldiers receive a pre-deployment assessment
    which includes a question about mental health. If Soldiers have a
    positive response to the mental health question, they receive a further
    evaluation by a clinician. The final recommendation is based on
    clinical judgment and commander input, which considers the geographical
    area in which the Soldier will be assigned and the potential
    environmental/austere conditions.
        A face-to-face post-deployment health assessment (PDHA) by trained
    healthcare provider during the re-deployment process has been in place
    for several years aimed at identifying and referring Soldiers with PTSD
    symptoms needing professional assistance. Referrals of these Soldiers
    for behavioral healthcare have routinely taken place and early
    intervention to lessen the impact of traumatic experiences has been
    emphasized.
        Beginning in 2006, all active and reserve component Soldiers are
    receiving a face-to-face post-deployment total health re-assessment
    (PDHRA) at three to six months post-redeployment. Specific questions on
    the PDHRA screening aim at measuring the presence and impact of PTSD
    symptoms. Behavioral healthcare providers will be utilized to further
    assess the needs of Soldiers and ensure care is offered. If following
    the re-assessment there are identified healthcare needs, Soldiers will
    be offered care through by military medical treatment facilities, by
    Department of Veterans Affairs' medical centers or VET centers, by
    private healthcare providers through TRICARE, or through community-
    based healthcare organizations established by the Army.
        If a Soldier has post-traumatic stress disorder or other
    psychological difficulties, they will be further evaluated and treated
    using well-recognized treatment guidelines. These include psychotherapy
    and pharmacotherapy. They may be delivered in a variety of venues, to
    include in theater and garrison, an outpatient or inpatient setting,
    and individually or in a group.
        Question. How do you determine when a service member who has been
    receiving treatment for PTSD is ready for deployment again? Are once-
    deployed soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines being sent back too
    early?
        Answer. The Army uses multiple screening processes to ensure all
    Soldiers who deploy are capable of performing their duties and do not
    pose a risk to themselves or other members of their unit.
        Prior to deployment Soldiers receive a pre-deployment assessment
    which includes questions about mental health. If Soldiers have a
    positive response to the mental health questions they receive further
    evaluation by a clinician. If the Soldier has symptoms of PTSD on the
    pre-deployment assessment, the symptoms are evaluated and treated by a
    mental health practitioner. A fitness for duty assessment is ordered if
    necessary. The final recommendation on deployment is based on clinical
    judgment of the treating provider and input from the unit commander.
        Research shows that all Soldiers are affected by combat experiences
    and the most seriously affected are those exposed to frequent direct
    combat or the injuries sustained in combat. It is likely that multiple
    deployments will lead to increased symptoms of PTSD. Soldiers with PTSD
    are identified in multiple ways. They may self-identify, be identified
    by the post-deployment health assessment, the post-deployment health
    re-assessment, or be referred by a family member or command. If a
    Soldier has PTSD or other psychological difficulties, they are further
    evaluated and treated using well-recognized treatment guidelines. These
    include psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. They are delivered in a
    variety of venues, in theater and garrison, an outpatient or inpatient
    setting, and individually or in a group.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted to Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

        Question. Have you modified the training you provide your Army
    medics and Navy Corpsmen and other military emergency care providers
    since hostilities began?
        Answer. Yes, the Navy has integrated emergency/trauma training
    throughout the educational continuum and in a variety of training
    centers. Please note the examples below:
        Naval Hospital Corps School, Great Lakes, IL (NHCS).--This is the
    first school in the career of a Corpsman. Since 2002, many changes have
    been made in response to regular communication between Field Medical
    Service School (FMSS) and NHCS. A variety of lessons and content have
    been added to the Tactical Combat Casualty Care and Care of the Patient
    with exposure to Nuclear Explosives courses. The courses have
    transitioned from group-paced lectures into a 100 percent blended
    learning environment.
        Independent Duty Corpsmen (IDC) Training at Naval School of Health
    Sciences (NSHS) San Diego, CA.--The IDC program has adjusted its
    curriculum to enhance the training for medical personnel who perform in
    an operational/remote environment, often without a medical officer. In
    the last two years students now attend the Operational and Emergency
    Medical Skills (OEMS) course which provides training to care for
    casualties using the principles taught in Advanced Trauma Life Support
    (ATLS) and addresses the mission of special medical care: prolonged
    transport times, unique military wounds and the pre-hospital
    environment. Additionally, the IDC program trauma unit has been revised
    to incorporate the principles/curriculum of TCCC.
        Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC).--Corpsmen and Medics are
    trained in TCCC in response to evidence based practice used on the
    battlefield. The USMC has published a Marine Corps Order that all 8404s
    will now receive TCCC training. The Naval Expeditionary Combat Command
    (NECC) has adopted the same requirements for their Corpsmen. To help
    support the NECC and USMC Individual Augmentee (IA) deployment TCCC
    training, the Naval Medical Education and Training Command (NMETC) has
    instructed the Naval Operational Medicine Institute (NOMI) to institute
    a TCCC ``Train the Trainer'' program. The first training sessions will
    take place the first week of June 2006 with multiple courses to follow.
        Naval Expeditionary Medical Training Institute located at Camp
    Pendleton, CA (NEMTI).--NEMTI is instructing and updating Fleet
    Hospital (FH), Expeditionary Medical Facility (EMF) and Battle Skills
    standards based on requirement-driven training. These training
    standards are built upon several items: Subject Matter Expert Review,
    current AOR After Action Reports, Medical Lessons Learned and
    requirements based upon specific COCOMs, OPLANS, and AOR's. This is
    also aligned with the Naval Audit Report (2003).
        Joint Special Operations Medical Training Center in Fort Bragg, NC
    (JSOMTC).--Curriculum changes were made to move the Combat Trauma
    Management module to the Special Operations Combat Medic (SOCM) course
    to provide the Army Rangers, 96th Civil Affairs Medics, SEAL Corpsman,
    Recon Corpsman, and Special Warfare Combat Crewman additional trauma
    training before going to their units. The total curriculum remains the
    same with minor changes to curriculum information and updates to
    support feedback and after action reports from the field. The length
    has remained the same; the frequency of the training has increased from
    four classes per year to eight beginning this fiscal year.
        Marine Aircraft Wings (MAW) Training.--MAWs have instituted
    training of organic, Medical Augmentation Program (MAP) personnel and
    Individual Augmentees to serve as Casualty Evacuation Corpsmen. The
    training which includes trauma care, aviation physiology and aircraft
    orientation varies from 1-4 weeks. In addition Navy squadrons are
    augmenting the Army Air Ambulance Mission and have procured Search and
    Rescue (SAR) Corpsmen and provided them with 4 weeks of Army Flight
    Medic Training under the auspices of NAVAIRFOR.
        Navy Trauma Training Course located at Los Angeles County-USC
    Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA (NTTC).--This entire program for
    Corpsmen, Nurses and Physicians was started in the summer of 2002 in
    support of the increased operational tempo and the need for trauma
    training. Traditionally Naval Medical Facilities did not treat a
    sufficient number of trauma cases to provide adequate initial and
    sustainment training to achieve proficiency. NTTC incorporates a
    military specific Pre Hospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS) training for
    Corpsmen as part of their curriculum.
        Question. What is your assessment of emergency care on the
    battlefield?
        Answer. ``Emergency care on the battlefield is much improved, so
    much so that the survival of our combat casualties is vastly better
    than it was in Viet Nam.'' This quote is from the Journal of Trauma,
    February 2006. (Holcomb JB, Stansbury LG, Champion HR, Wade C, Bellamy
    RF. Understanding combat casualty care statistics. J Trauma. 2006
    Feb;60(2):397-401.)

            COMPARISON OF STATISTICS FOR BATTLE CASUALTIES, 1941-2005
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             World War
                                                 II      Vietnam    OIF/OEF
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Percent KIA............................       23.7       21.3       12.5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. How successful were you in meeting your mission
    recruiting goals for this past year? Are there any specialties that
    have seen a drastic decline in retention?
        Answer. The Navy's Medical Department Recruiting did not meet
    recruiting goals in fiscal year 2005 for either the Active Component
    (AC) or Reserve Component (RC) and has had limited success this year to
    date. The Nurse Corps has been much more successful this year with its
    student programs and Direct Accessions thanks to the initiatives
    mentioned below. The Direct Accessions for the Medical Corps, Dental
    Corps and Medical Service Corps are falling short of the mission
    recruiting goal this year.
        The following specialties have had an increased loss rate over the
    past few years:
        Medical Corps--Preventive Medicine, Psychiatry, Family Medicine,
    and Occupational Medicine.
        Dental Corps--Endodontics, Orthodontics, and Periodontics.
        Medical Service Corps--Clinical Psychologists, Pharmacists, and
    Physician Assistants.
        Nurse Corps--Family Nurse Practitioners.
        Question. What are you as a service doing to try and address these
    critical shortfalls?
        Answer. Efforts to increase recruitment and retention of qualified
    health care professionals in Navy Medicine are underway in several
    directions. This year, the compensation for Health Services Collegiate
    Program (HSCP) students (used by Dental Corps and Medical Service
    Corps) increased from E3 to E6 pay, greatly improving the success of
    that program. Increases in the Dental Officer Multiyear Retention
    Bonuses were also realized for fiscal year 2005.
        The fiscal year 2006 NDAA recently authorized Incentive Special Pay
    (ISP) for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.
        Funding has recently been increased for the Health Professions Loan
    Repayment Program (HPLRP) which was authorized in 1998. This offers
    over $30,000 per year to be paid directly toward loans incurred for
    healthcare training. This is used for both retention and recruitment
    across all medical communities.
        Nurse Corps recruiting continues to be impacted by the national
    shortage of nurses, resulting in strong competition for a finite pool
    of work force nurses and nursing school students. The primary
    strategies chosen to recruit and retain our Nurse Corps officers
    include the following:
      --The Nurse Corps Direct Accession Bonus was increased at two levels:
            $15,000 (incurring a 3 year obligation) and $20,000 (with a 4
            year obligation).
      --HPLRP was offered for the first time this year as both a recruiting
            and retention tool.
      --The Nurse Candidate Program (NCP) accession bonus was increased
            from $5,000 to $10,000, and the monthly stipend increased from
            $500 to $1,000. In addition, NCP has been expanded by twenty
            openings this year.
        Medical Service Corps' increases in HSCP compensation have improved
    interest. HPLRP awards were offered to an expanded number of clinical
    psychologists and podiatrists this year and are being used for
    accessions for the first time. One-year HSCP scholarships are being
    successfully used to recruit candidates already in training for some of
    the specialties.
        Question. How do you carry out the medical mission at home and
    abroad with a decline in recruiting and retention of specialty medical
    personnel?
        Answer. We have adopted several measures to respond to this
    challenging issue. One, we make every attempt to maximize the
    efficiency of our existing staff. This includes ensuring that our
    providers are focused on clinical rather than administrative services.
    Two, we focus the use of support and ancillary staff on the clinical
    mission. Third, where indicated, clinic hours have been adjusted to
    meet demand. Fourth, to address shortfalls and meet access standards,
    we engage in greater use of contract services and network referrals,
    while at the same time attempting to maintain training programs vital
    to operational medical readiness.
        Question. How do you determine when a service member who has been
    receiving treatment for PTSD is ready for deployment again? Are once-
    deployed soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines being sent back too
    early?
        Answer. We employ numerous methods for screening those at risk for
    development of PTSD and related conditions. Service members are
    screened prior to deployment, upon redeployment, and again periodically
    after returning from deployment. At any point if a service member
    presents symptoms that indicate the potential need for treatment, he or
    she is referred to an appropriate mental health or medical provider for
    complete evaluation and any treatment deemed necessary.
        Navy Medicine actively encourages Sailors and Marines to seek care
    for behavioral healthcare concerns from a variety of sources.
    Behavioral healthcare services are included on all deployment and
    redeployment briefs. Navy chaplains provide information on availability
    of counseling from pastoral and medical sources in Warrior Transition
    Briefs. Fleet and Family Service Centers and Marine Corps Community
    Services publish availability of non-medical counseling for behavioral
    issues.
        If after treatment a service member's condition is not judged to
    have improved such that he or she can be returned to full duty, they
    are placed in a limited duty status to ensure that they get whatever
    further treatment is necessary. At this time, we have no evidence that
    service members are, in general, being returned to a deployed
    environment too early.
                                     ______

       Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General George Peach Taylor, Jr.
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                               MEDICAL RECRUITING

        Question. The Air Force plays a critical role in the medical
    evacuation of troops overseas. With recruiting and retention
    challenges, are you concerned that the Air Force will be unable to
    continue meeting the high optempo of meeting the needs of this mission
    overseas?
        Answer. The Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) places high priority
    on ensuring critical authorizations for aeromedical evacuation (AE)
    assignments are filled. Information from AFPC shows all AE
    authorizations are currently filled and they continually plan ahead to
    fill projected vacancies. At this time, AE is a voluntary career
    option. Multiple avenues exist to showcase AE as a positive career
    broadening opportunity for AF medics. Many AE forces reside in the
    Reserve Component, and they are actively engaged in recruiting and
    retention initiatives to ensure continued success in this vital Total
    Air Force mission.

                         POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

        Question. There is growing concern with how the Department monitors
    and addresses the emotional and mental health of each returning
    soldier, sailor, airman and Marine from combat. Can you each tell us
    how you are monitoring and treating those that are at risk for Post
    Traumatic Stress Disorder?
        Answer. The Air Force views the monitoring and addressing of Post
    Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and all deployment related issues as a
    shared community responsibility not just a medical issue. In August
    2005, the Air Force standardized this support by adding Chapter 8
    Redeployment Support Process to Air Force Instruction 10-403,
    Deployment Planning and Execution. This instruction outlines the
    responsibilities of both commanders and helping agencies in supporting
    deployment members and their families.
        Monitoring for PTSD begins with the post-deployment process. Thirty
    days before returning home, Airmen are given reintegration education by
    chaplain and mental health staff where reunion/reintegration issues are
    addressed, as well as mental health concerns that might occur and
    resources Airmen could pursue to address those concerns. Prior to
    returning home, the Area of Responsibility (AOR) commander is
    responsible for contacting the home station command for Airmen who
    could benefit from support due to personal loss, exposure to danger, or
    witnessing traumatic events.
        As our troops re-deploy, post-deployment assessments are conducted
    for all Airmen, mainly in-theater, just before they return home, or
    within five days of re-deploying. Commanders ensure all re-deploying
    Airmen have completed their post-deployment medical processing
    immediately upon return from deployment, prior to release for downtime,
    leave, or demobilization. These are stored in electronic fashion and
    are available through TRICARE Online to our provider staffs worldwide.
        During the post-deployment assessment, each Airman has a face-to-
    face assessment with a health care provider. This discussion includes
    discussion of any health concerns raised in the Post-Deployment Health
    Assessment questionnaire, mental health or psychosocial issues, special
    medications taken during the deployment, and concerns about possible
    environmental and occupational exposures. Concerns are addressed using
    the appropriate Department of Defense (DOD) guidelines such as the
    Veterans Administration (VA)/DOD Post-Deployment Health Clinical
    Practice Guidelines and the VA/DOD Clinical Practice Guidelines for
    Post-Traumatic Stress.
        Within seven days of return to their home station, Airmen receive
    reintegration education by the installation helping agencies where
    issues that may develop are discussed and resources are identified.
    These briefings are mandatory for military members while family members
    are highly encouraged to attend.
        To better ensure early identification and treatment of emerging
    deployment related concerns, at every medical appointment Airmen are
    asked if their appointment is deployment related.
        Airmen complete another screening assessment, the Post-Deployment
    Health Re-Assessment (PDHRA), within three to six months of return from
    deployment. Appropriate referrals for care are made as indicated by
    their responses to the PDHRA questions.
        In addition, on an annual basis, every military member receives a
    Preventive Health Assessment to ensure the required clinical preventive
    services are received and they meet their individual medical readiness
    requirements.
        As evidenced above, early identification of PTSD and other
    deployment related concerns is accomplished by the active involvement
    of commanders and helping agencies who not only train themselves, but
    also the average Airman on how to recognize distress and match that
    distress with the appropriate resource. In 2004, the Air Force began to
    emphasize the concept of being a good Wingman, a person who actively
    assesses and responds to the needs of his or her fellow Airmen.
        Air Force psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers treat
    Airmen for PTSD at our Life Skills Support Centers (LSSC). Every
    installation in the Air Force has a LSSC and military members have
    first priority for treatment. The frequency and length of treatment is
    extremely variable, depending upon the symptom intensity, impact on
    functionality, and a host of other clinical issues.

                                RECRUITING GOALS

        Question. How successful were you in meeting your mission
    recruiting goals for this past year? Are there any specialties that
    have seen a drastic decline in retention?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2005, the Air Force Medical Service
    experienced limited success in recruitment of health professionals. The
    overall recruiting of fully qualified health professionals was 46.12
    percent of goal (see chart 1). A fully qualified health professional is
    a trained practitioner, fully ready to begin work and with no prior
    obligation to the Air Force.

                                     CHART 1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal Year 2005 September 30, 2005
             Fully Qualified          --------------------------------------
                                           Req       Recruited   Req Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MC...............................          204           29        14.22
    DC...............................          104           23        22.12
    NC...............................          350  ...........        57.14
    BSC..............................           81           70        86.42
    MSC..............................           35           35       100.00
                                      --------------------------------------
          FQ Total...................          774          357        46.12
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Air Force Medical Service has been quite successful in
    recruiting of health care professionals through the Health Professions
    Scholarship Program (see chart 2). The Health Professions Scholarship
    and Financial Assistance Programs (HPSP/FAP) are valuable training and
    force sustainment pipelines, particularly for the Medical Corps and
    Dental Corps. The overall recruiting success for HPSP was 108.28
    percent of goal while the resident Financial Assistance Program (FAP)
    met 56.41 percent of goal (see chart 3).

                                     CHART 2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           HPSP (Scholarships)             Req       Recruited   Req Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MC...............................          191          220       115.18
    DC...............................          105          107       101.90
    NC...............................            7            3        42.86
    BSC..............................           23           23       100.00
    MSC..............................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                      --------------------------------------
          HPSP Total.................          326          353       108.28
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     CHART 3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             FAP (Residents)               Req       Recruited   Req Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MC...............................           35           21        60.00
    DC...............................            4            1        25.00
    NC...............................  ...........  ...........  ...........
    BSC..............................  ...........  ...........  ...........
    MSC..............................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                      --------------------------------------
          FAP Total..................           39           22        56.41
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Air Force Medical Service continues to struggle with retention
    and staffing of multiple required specialties. While retention rates
    have not declined dramatically in recent years, retention after
    completion of the initial active duty obligation remains low for many
    specialties.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Question. What are you as a service doing to try and address these
    critical shortfalls? How do you carry out the medical mission at home
    and abroad with a decline in recruiting and retention of specialty
    medical personnel?
        Answer. The Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) continues to
    experience challenges in recruiting and retaining physicians, dentists
    and nurses. Our current monetary incentive strategy includes the Health
    Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP), accession bonuses, loan
    repayments, and special pays or bonuses for retention of required
    specialties. We are also addressing top non-monetary concerns affecting
    recruiting and retention, such as tour length, deployments, working
    conditions, and educational opportunities. The AFMS is working closely
    with Recruiting Service, the personnel community and the Secretary of
    the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs to improve our
    accessions processes and secure the funding needed to retain health
    care professionals.
        The AFMS optimizes the effectiveness of healthcare delivery via
    efficient management of well trained members and teams operating
    smaller, faster, mobile, and modular platforms. The AFMS carries out
    its medical mission by utilizing personnel resources based on their
    multiple skill sets and diverse training. Additionally, we develop
    mutually beneficial working relationships with our Sister Services,
    TRICARE affiliates and networks, and civilian contract providers.

                         POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

        Question. How do you determine when a service member who has been
    receiving treatment for PTSD is ready for deployment again? Are once-
    deployed soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines being sent back too
    early?
        Answer. The decision as to when an Airman who has been receiving
    treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is ready for
    deployment is a medical decision made between the Airman and their
    medical provider based on medical expertise and the clinical
    circumstances. Command and mission constraints do not interfere with
    this medical decision making process. Airmen are not returned to
    deployable status before their medical provider has determined they are
    ready to deploy. Air Force psychiatrists, psychologists, and social
    workers are highly trained in the assessment and treatment of PTSD, as
    well as military fitness for duty determinations. These providers are
    trained in world-class residency and internship programs at medical
    centers across the United States.
        Medical providers communicate medical fitness for duty to the
    personnel system through the use of medical profiles. Airmen receiving
    treatment for PTSD who the medical provider determines should not
    deploy are given a psychiatric S4 profile (nondeployable). Commanders
    cannot override the profile and Airmen cannot deploy until their
    medical provider changes this profile. Thus, the military cannot
    redeploy Airmen until their medical provider determines they are ready.
        Factors that influence medical determinations of deployability
    include the resolution of the member's symptoms, the likelihood of
    relapse, the risk of recurrence if the member were re-exposed to
    trauma, the presence or absence of ongoing functional impairment due to
    the disorder, and the provider's estimation of the member's ability to
    psychologically tolerate the rigors of deploying to austere and hostile
    environments. If and when the provider determines the member is again
    ready for worldwide duty, the profile is changed from S4 to S1, S2, or
    S3 (all deployable profiles), depending on the clinical circumstances.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted to Major General Melissa A. Rank
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Question. How successful were you in meeting your mission
    recruiting goals for this past year? Are there any specialties that
    have seen a drastic decline in retention?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2005, the Air Force Medical Service
    experienced limited success in recruitment of health professionals. The
    overall recruiting of fully qualified health professionals was 46.12
    percent of goal (see chart 1). A fully qualified health professional is
    a trained practitioner, fully ready to begin work and with no prior
    obligation to the Air Force.

                                     CHART 1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal Year 2005 September 30, 2005
             Fully Qualified          --------------------------------------
                                           Req       Recruited   Req Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MC...............................          204           29        14.22
    DC...............................          104           23        22.12
    NC...............................          350  ...........        57.14
    BSC..............................           81           70        86.42
    MSC..............................           35           35       100.00
                                      --------------------------------------
          FQ Total...................          774          357        46.12
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Air Force Medical Service has been quite successful in
    recruiting of healthcare professionals through the Health Professions
    Scholarship Program (see chart 2). The Health Professions Scholarship
    and Financial Assistance Programs (HPSP/FAP) are valuable training and
    force sustainment pipelines, particularly for the Medical Corps and
    Dental Corps. The overall recruiting success for HPSP was 108.28
    percent of goal while the resident Financial Assistance Program (FAP)
    met 56.41 percent of goal (see chart 3).

                                     CHART 2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           HPSP (Scholarships)             Req       Recruited   Req Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MC...............................          191          220       115.18
    DC...............................          105          107       101.90
    NC...............................            7            3        42.86
    BSC..............................           23           23       100.00
    MSC..............................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                      --------------------------------------
          HPSP Total.................          326          353       108.28
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     CHART 3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             FAP (Residents)               Req       Recruited   Req Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MC...............................           35           21        60.00
    DC...............................            4            1        25.00
    NC...............................  ...........  ...........  ...........
    BSC..............................  ...........  ...........  ...........
    MSC..............................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                      --------------------------------------
          FAP Total..................           39           22        56.41
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Air Force Medical Service continues to struggle with retention
    and staffing of multiple required specialties. While retention rates
    have not declined dramatically in recent years, retention after
    completion of the initial active duty obligation remains low for many
    specialties.
        Question. What are you as a service doing to try and address these
    critical shortfalls? How do you to carry out the medical mission at
    home and abroad with a decline in recruiting and retention of specialty
    medical personnel?
        Answer. The Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) continues to
    experience challenges in recruiting and retaining physicians, dentists
    and nurses. Our current monetary incentive strategy includes the Health
    Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP), accession bonuses, loan
    repayments, and special pays or bonuses for retention of required
    specialties. We are also addressing top non-monetary concerns affecting
    recruiting and retention, such as tour length, deployments, working
    conditions, and educational opportunities. The AFMS is working closely
    with Recruiting Service, the personnel community and our Secretary of
    the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs to improve our
    accessions processes and secure the funding needed to retain health
    care professionals.
        The AFMS optimizes the effectiveness of healthcare delivery via
    efficient management of well trained members and teams operating
    smaller, faster, mobile, and modular platforms. The AFMS carries out
    its medical mission by utilizing personnel resources based on their
    multiple skill sets and diverse training. Additionally, we develop
    mutually beneficial working relationships with our Sister Services,
    TRICARE affiliates and networks, and civilian contract providers.
        Question. How do you determine when a service member who has been
    receiving treatment for PTSD is ready for deployment again? Are once-
    deployed soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines being sent back too
    early?
        Answer. The decision as to when an Airman who has been receiving
    treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is ready for
    deployment is a medical decision made between the Airman and their
    medical provider based on medical expertise and the clinical
    circumstances. Command and mission constraints do not interfere with
    this medical decision making process. Airmen are not returned to
    deployable status before their medical provider has determined they are
    ready to deploy. Air Force psychiatrists, psychologists, and social
    workers are highly trained in the assessment and treatment of PTSD, as
    well as military fitness for duty determinations. These providers are
    trained in world-class residency and internship programs at medical
    centers across the United States.
        Medical providers communicate medical fitness for duty to the
    personnel system through the use of medical profiles. Airmen receiving
    treatment for PTSD who the medical provider determines should not
    deploy are given a psychiatric S4 profile (nondeployable). Commanders
    cannot override the profile and Airmen cannot deploy until their
    medical provider changes this profile. Thus, the military cannot
    redeploy Airmen until their medical provider determines they are ready.
        Factors that influence medical determinations of deployability
    include the resolution of the member's symptoms, the likelihood of
    relapse, the risk of recurrence if the member were re-exposed to
    trauma, the presence or absence of ongoing functional impairment due to
    the disorder, and the provider's estimation of the member's ability to
    psychologically tolerate the rigors of deploying to austere and hostile
    environments. If and when the provider determines the member is again
    ready for worldwide duty, the profile is changed from S4 to S1, S2, or
    S3 (all deployable profiles), depending on the clinical circumstances.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted to Major General Gale S. Pollock
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

        Question. How successful were you in meeting your mission
    recruiting goals for this past year? Are there any specialties that
    have seen a drastic decline in retention?
        Answer. Our efforts to achieve the Active Component nurse mission
    have not been successful since 1999. The U.S. Army Accessions Command
    (USAAC) achieved 83 percent of the required mission in fiscal year
    2005. Unfortunately, USAAC projects that they will only complete 73
    percent of mission in fiscal year 2006. As of April 30, 2006, the
    Active Component is 304 officers below authorized strength. Recruiting
    is essential as it is through new medical surgical nurse accessions
    that we then educate into specialties such as anesthesia, critical
    care, preoperative and OB/GYN nursing.
        In fiscal year 2005, the recruiting mission for the Reserve
    component was 485, only 66 percent of this goal was achieved. Since
    2003, accession into the Reserve is an average of 21 percent below
    mission. In addition, 50 percent of those nurses accessed are not
    baccalaureate prepared, and are not eligible to remain in the Reserves
    long-term.
        Our active duty retention rate has declined overall to 91 percent
    in fiscal year 2005. Unfortunately, when we look at the number of
    specialty nurses, retention failure has lowered their numbers such that
    operational tempo is significantly increased and data indicates this
    increased deployment rate is contributing to their exit from the
    military. This is a problem for preoperative, critical care and
    emergency room nursing staff as well as the nurse anesthetists.
        The Reserve Component retention rate is adversely affected by the
    failure to recruit BSN nurses and the mandatory release of those who
    are unwilling to complete their educational requirements to serve as a
    military officer.
        Question. What are you as a service doing to try and address these
    critical shortfalls? How do you to carry out the medical mission at
    home and abroad with a decline in recruiting and retention of specialty
    medical personnel?
        Answer. We are actively addressing both recruiting and retention to
    assess critical shortfalls. We recently implemented the ``Every Nurse
    is a Recruiter'' initiative to increase participation by all Army
    Nurses in nurse recruiting. Our AMEDD Enlisted Commissioning Program
    provides active duty Soldiers the opportunity to complete their BSN and
    receive an appointment as an Army Nurse. The Health Professions Loan
    Repayment Program is also available to our officers as both a
    recruiting and a retention incentive. Data suggests that retention of
    our officers is largely dependent on three main factors: job
    satisfaction, education and training, and retirement benefits. To
    better prepare our new graduates, we are developing an enhanced Nurse
    Internship Program. We also offer intense entry-level courses in a
    variety of nursing specialties and our nurse anesthesia program, ranked
    second in the nation, continues to serve us well. We fully fund many of
    our nurses to complete graduate or doctoral degrees in nursing or
    closely related fields. We recently implemented a pilot program to
    train Registered Nurse First Assistants. Finally, the U.S. Army Medical
    Command (MEDCOM) utilizes a system called the PROFIS Deployment System
    (PDS). The PDS helps to ensure equitability of deployments within each
    specialty of nursing by tracking both who has deployed and the duration
    of that deployment. All MEDCOM Soldiers are able to volunteer online
    for deployments, this ongoing opportunity provides an element of
    predictability for our officers. All of these programs are crucial to
    our accession and retention efforts.
        We utilize a combination of Reserve Component, civilian and
    contract nurses to augment our deploying staff, but they are often not
    available. Our retention rate is negatively affected by the increased
    demand at home station for the nurses who are not deployed in support
    of OEF/OIF. Whenever we are unable to hire civilian nurses in part due
    to the hiring constraints of OPM on college graduate nurses or are
    unable to fill contract positions, our military nurses must serve in
    their stead in addition to normal work demands. This constant pressure
    on our junior nurses contributes to their decision to leave the
    military. Finally, data suggest that increased lengths of deployment
    negatively impact retention rates. In addition to increasing their
    incentive pay in fiscal year 2005, implementation of a 180-day
    deployment rotation policy was a good initial step in stemming the loss
    of our certified registered nurse anesthetists.
        Question. How do you determine when a service member who has been
    receiving treatment for PTSD is ready for deployment again? Are once-
    deployed soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines being sent back too
    early?
        Answer. The Army uses multiple screening processes to ensure all
    Soldiers who deploy are capable of performing their duties and do not
    pose a risk to themselves or other members of their unit.
        Prior to deployment Soldiers receive a pre-deployment assessment
    which includes questions about mental health. If Soldiers have a
    positive response to the mental health questions they receive further
    evaluation by a clinician. If the Soldier has symptoms of PTSD on the
    pre-deployment assessment, the symptoms are evaluated and treated by a
    mental health practitioner. A fitness for duty assessment is ordered if
    necessary. The final recommendation on deployment is based on clinical
    judgment of the treating provider and input from the unit commander.
        Research shows that all Soldiers are affected by combat experiences
    and the most seriously affected are those exposed to frequent direct
    combat or the injuries sustained in combat. It is likely that multiple
    deployments will lead to increased symptoms of PTSD. Soldiers with PTSD
    are identified in multiple ways. They may self-identify, be identified
    by the post-deployment health assessment, the post-deployment health
    re-assessment, or be referred by a family member or command. If a
    Soldier has PTSD or other psychological difficulties, they are further
    evaluated and treated using well-recognized treatment guidelines. These
    include psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. They are delivered in a
    variety of venues, in theater and garrison, an outpatient or inpatient
    setting, and individually or in a group.
                                     ______

         Questions Submitted to Rear Admiral Christine M. Bruzek-Kohler
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                            MEDICAL RECRUITING GOALS

        Question. How successful were you in meeting your mission
    recruiting goals for this past year?
        Answer. Navy did not meet recruiting goals in medical programs in
    fiscal year 2005 for either the Active Component (AC) or Reserve
    Component (RC). Navy attainment by program was: Medical Corps--58
    percent AC, 60 percent RC; Dental Corps--76 percent AC, 39 percent RC;
    Medical Service Corps--82 percent AC, 60 percent RC; and Nurse Corps--
    73 percent AC, 97 percent RC.
        Question. Are there any specialties that have seen a drastic
    decline in retention?
        Answer. Within our wartime specialties, shortfalls have been
    identified in critical care--64 percent manned, peri-operative
    nursing--89 percent manned, and nurse anesthesia--90 percent manned.

                ADDRESSING BILLET SHORTFALLS AND MEETING MISSION

        Question. What are you as a service doing to try and address these
    critical shortfalls?
        Answer. Navy is executing a Total Force plan to correct medical
    personnel shortages through a coordinated effort by the Chief of Naval
    Personnel, the Surgeon General of the Navy, Commander Navy Recruiting
    Command and Chief of the Navy Reserve.
        We have reemphasized recruiting in critical medical specialties
    through an expanded bonus program, education loan relief programs, and
    medical specialty pays. Specific measures we have implemented since
    fiscal year 2005 include increasing capacity in our most popular
    accession programs, implementing the Health Profession Loan Repayment
    Program, diversifying our accession sources, and increasing the
    following financial incentives: Nurse Corps Direct Accession Bonus,
    Nurse Candidate Program Accession Bonus, Nurse Candidate Program
    Monthly Stipend, and the Certified Registered Nurse Anesthesia
    Incentive Special Pay. We are continuously evaluating these newly
    initiated efforts while exploring other options to retain our talent at
    the 4-10 years of service level.
        To combat reserve shortfalls, we have implemented a mobilization
    deferment process whereby an Active Component (AC) officer
    transitioning to the Reserve Component (RC) may apply for deferment
    from mobilization for up to one year. This initiative is aimed at those
    separating AC officers who have recently deployed and may be hesitant
    to transition to the RC for fear of immediate re-deployment.
    Additionally, we are considering an option for Medical Professionals
    that would permit shorter, predictable mobilization periods to limit
    ``time away from practice,'' a common reason for both medical attrition
    and shortages in accession.
        Question. How do you carry out the medical mission at home and
    abroad with a decline in recruiting and retention of specialty medical
    personnel?
        Answer. Our facilities abroad have priority status and are not
    affected by medical manning shortfalls.
        At home, we have a broad range of options, including contracting
    for care or referring care to the TRICARE Managed Care Support Contract
    Network. The TRICARE network is designed to support the military direct
    care system in times of sudden or major deployment of Military
    Treatment Facility staff. In addition, Reserve personnel in designated
    key specialties are utilized when required by Military Treatment
    Facilities at home.

                      POST TRAUMATIC STRESS RETURN TO DUTY

        Question. How do you determine when a service member who has been
    receiving treatment for PTSD is ready for deployment again? Are once-
    deployed soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines being sent back too
    early?
        Answer. Anyone exposed to the extremely stressful environment of
    combat is affected by those events. The majority of service members are
    able to cope with and integrate these events over time and experience
    no significant or lasting impact. However, a small percentage will need
    assistance in dealing with their experiences and may ultimately be
    diagnosed and treated for PTSD or other mental health conditions.
        Navy Medicine is committed to providing appropriate mental health
    care to our Sailors and Marines and to their families. In order to
    accomplish this mission several continuous programs of education,
    training, assessment, referral, and professional care have been
    implemented. These services are provided to service members and their
    families before, during, and after deployment to an operational
    theater.
        For Sailors and Marines preparing for a deployment, the Department
    of the Navy (DON) provides a comprehensive program of stress education,
    health surveillance, and forward identification and management of
    stress symptoms, including psychiatric conditions such as PTSD. A broad
    range of services are available to our Sailors and Marines while
    underway and while in port via our MTFs, psychologists aboard ships,
    and other non-medical assets such as Fleet and Family Service Centers
    and chaplains. The Marine Corps' Combat Operational Stress Control
    (COSC) Office, headed by a Navy psychiatrist with combat experience, is
    actively engaged in heightening awareness of combat and operation
    stress, ensuring quick access to care, and strengthening the coping
    skills of Marines and their families. In theater, members with stress
    problems receive prompt support from chaplains, medical officers, and
    mental health providers embedded with the operating forces through the
    Operational Stress Control and Readiness (OSCAR) program. Upon
    returning, service members are prepared for reintegration with their
    communities through the ``Warrior Transition'' and ``Return & Reunion''
    programs.
        Navy Medicine actively encourages our Sailors and Marines to seek
    care for behavioral health concerns from a variety of sources. We
    include information on the availability of behavioral health care
    services on all deployment and redeployment briefs. Our Navy chaplains
    provide information on availability of counseling from pastoral and
    medical sources in Warrior Transition Briefs. Our Fleet and Family
    Services Centers and Marine Corps Community Services assets publish
    availability of non-medical counseling for behavioral issues.
        The stigma associated with seeking mental health care remains a
    significant issue, both in the military and in society in general. To
    overcome that barrier, the Navy and Marine Corps team realizes that to
    overcome that barrier time and education are essential; however, at
    heart it is a leadership issue. As a result, we educate and
    indoctrinate our leaders to be aware of potential behavioral health
    care concerns and of the availability of medical and non-medical assets
    to manage these concerns. Two new programs we offer are the ``Leader's
    Guide to Personnel in Distress'' with versions for both Navy and Marine
    Corps.
        We continually evaluate service members prior to and immediately
    following their deployments to determine whether they've suffered any
    adverse psychological or physical consequences of that deployment using
    the Pre and Post Deployment Assessment (PDHA) process. Three to six
    months following deployment, we are instituting screening of each
    service member with the Post Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA).
    Any service member who identifies emotional or physical concerns
    related to their deployment is referred for further evaluation and
    treatment as indicated. If a service member is deemed to have a
    deployment limiting condition in need of treatment, we would not
    redeploy that member until appropriate treatment had been rendered and
    the service member restored to a duty status.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Inouye. The subcommittee will reconvene on May 10
    at 10 a.m., in this room, SD-192, to review the missile defense
    program for fiscal year 2007.
        The subcommittee will now stand in recess. Thank you very
    much.
        [Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., Wednesday, May 3, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    May 10.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senator Stevens, Cochran, Shelby, Burns, and
    Inouye.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             Missile Defense Agency

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL HENRY A. ``TREY''
                OBERING III, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE,
                DIRECTOR

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. We're pleased to have Lieutenant General
    Henry Obering, Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA),
    and Lieutenant General Larry Dodgen, Commander of the U.S. Army
    Space and Missile Defense Command, U.S. Army Forces Strategic
    Command, and the Joint Functional Component of the Command
    Integrated Missile Defense (IMD).
        General Obering, given your service at the Missile Defense
    Agency for the last 2 years, we have been acquainted with you
    and your role, and appreciate your service as Director of the
    Missile Defense Agency.
        General Dodgen, we thank you, again, for coming to appear
    before the subcommittee, and recognize your multiple command
    roles and responsibilities.
        Since I am late, I am going to put the balance of my
    statement in the record. I would also like to include the
    statement for Senator Cochran in the record as well.
        [The statements follow:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens

        The committee is pleased to welcome Lieutenant General
    Henry Obering, Director of the Missile Defense Agency and
    Lieutenant General Larry Dodgen, Commander, U.S. Army Space and
    Missile Defense Command, U.S. Army Forces Strategic Command,
    and Joint Functional Component Command--Integrated Missile
    Defense.
        General Obering, given your service at the Missile Defense
    Agency for almost two years, we are acquainted with you and
    your role as Director of the Missile Defense Agency.
        General Dodgen, thank you for testifying again before this
    committee and we recognize your multiple command roles and
    responsibilities and look forward to hearing your statement
    today.
        We thank the both of you for being here today.
        In the face of a growing threat, ballistic missile defense
    is one of the most challenging missions in the Department of
    Defense. Recognizing the strategic importance of this mission
    to the United States, this committee has consistently provided
    resources for missile defense programs. Unfortunately, we as a
    nation face multiple threats with limited resources, forcing
    this committee to make tough choices with respect to our
    defense priorities. This committee seeks to ensure that our
    nations limited resources are tightly focused, on countering
    the most important threats.
        General Dodgen and General Obering, we look forward to
    hearing about the current status of our missile defense
    capabilities and how the program is proceeding. We will make
    your full statement a part of the committee's record. Before we
    begin, let me turn to Senator Inouye, my vice chairman, for his
    opening remark.
                                    ------

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran

        Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our witnesses today.
    Given the development of missile programs around the world and
    the nuclear development efforts by North Korea and Iran, the
    importance of maintaining a strong missile defense program
    cannot be overstated. Our nation needs to continue to develop
    and deploy a missile defense capability.
        I look forward to your testimony about the capabilities on
    which you are working. I appreciate your service, and offer you
    my support toward achieving a layered system capable of
    defending our nation, our deployed forces, and our allies
    against the full range of missile threats.

        Senator Stevens. But I do want to tell you, we do look
    forward to hearing from you about the status of our missile
    defense capabilities. I enjoyed very much the event out at
    Vandenberg, where we did commit part of that base to the
    National Missile Defense Command. And I look forward to hearing
    more from you about the future of that command.
        Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. Well, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I'll follow your leadership, and may I ask that my statement be
    made part of the record.
        Senator Stevens. Without objection, we'll put your full
    statement in the record.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye

        Today I am pleased to join our Chairman in welcoming to the
    committee Lieutenant General Obering and Lieutenant General
    Dodgen to discuss the fiscal year 2007 budget request for
    missile defense.
        Gentlemen, it has been nearly two years since the President
    directed the Department of Defense to field an initial missile
    defense capability. We have been investing close to $10 billion
    annually on missile defense to reach that goal, and while there
    have been multiple successes for the system, we still do not
    have any of the ``shoot-down'' systems on alert.
        We have placed significant resources and time in the
    ground-based missile defense system, the Aegis system, and in
    programs such as Airborne Laser and Theater High Altitude Area
    Defense. This Committee wants to see these programs succeed.
    However, each year as we review the budget request, it seems
    that the Missile Defense Agency is investing more of its
    resources on new research activities, instead of focusing on
    getting an operational capability out of the core programs I
    just mentioned.
        Gentlemen, I know that you are committed to proving that
    the missile defense system works and that it is fielded and
    fully operational. I am confident that you have the best
    intentions when you invest in new research programs. However, I
    am concerned that we might not be able to continue the current
    rate of spending on missile defense into the future. As such, I
    want to be sure that the systems we have been investing in so
    heavily are deployed and that their funding is not curtailed to
    pay for new programs.
        I thank you both for appearing before the Committee. I hope
    you will address this concern today during our discussions, and
    I look forward to hearing your remarks.

        Senator Stevens. And we'll put the statement of each of you
    in the record in full, as though read.
        Senator Shelby, do you have any comments?
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to both
    generals' testimony here today.
        Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Burns, do you have a comment?
        Senator Burns. I have a statement, and I'd put that in the
    record, looking forward to their testimony today. And it's a
    short one, so I think we get on with the business at hand.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns

        Mr. Chairman, Lieutenant General Obering, Lieutenant
    General Dodgen. I would like to welcome you and let you know
    that we appreciate your professional service to our nation.
        We also appreciate your efforts to field a ballistic
    missile defense system. Your labors are the continuation of
    years of research and development that began with the Strategic
    Defense Initiative under President Reagan. When SDI was
    introduced over 20 years ago there were many doubters who
    dubbed the program ``Star Wars''. In the due course of time
    those doubters were proven to be on the wrong side of history.
    As it turned out SDI was a definitive factor in breaking the
    back of our Soviet enemies. As we have seen, many of the
    technologies that resulted from this effort have seen uses that
    no one could have predicted. The development and fielding of
    the Patriot missile is one example of how missile defense
    technology is critical to our Armed Forces. The Patriot PAC-3
    is now the most mature and effective system in our missile
    defense arsenal.
        Today we have a new enemy, and our efforts need to be
    geared toward facing that enemy in the war that we are now
    engaged in. Missile defense is an important element of
    protecting our forces that are forward deployed. The spiral
    development of Patriot PAC-3 on the land, and the Navy Standard
    SM-3 missile paired with new long range radars are two examples
    of technology that can be used in any theater around the world,
    or re-deployed back to the United States for homeland defense.
    These tactical systems now have strategic capabilities.
        Although, I understand the importance of developing missile
    defense technology I have concerns that your agency is juggling
    too many programs; and the result is that we are paying for
    parallel programs with some redundancies. I look forward to
    hearing your views about the integration of your programs, and
    your plan for making the most of our tight budget while we are
    fighting the global war on terror.

        Senator Stevens. Generals, we put a high value on your
    activities. And I must say that the progress that's being made
    is very enlightening, very welcome. So, we look forward to your
    statement.
        General Obering.
        General Obering. Well, thank you. Good morning, Mr.
    Chairman, Senator Inouye, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee. It's an honor to be here today.
        This morning, I'll review the progress that we've made in
    fielding and developing a missile defense capability, our plans
    for 2007, and our test program.
        We structured the Missile Defense Program to meet the
    current and evolving ballistic missile threats by balancing
    early fielding with steady system improvements over time. We're
    requesting $9.3 billion to support our very intense program of
    work in 2007. About $2.4 billion will cover the fielding and
    sustainment of the system components. And about $6.9 billion
    will be invested in further development and continued testing.
        Since I last addressed you, we've made good progress in
    developing and fielding an integrated layered defense for the
    United States, our deployed forces, allies, and friends,
    against ballistic missiles of all ranges and all phases of
    flight. This is especially true in our long-range defense
    component.
        Last year, following the two test aborts, I chartered an
    independent review of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
    Program. The independent review team concluded that we were on
    the right track, but needed to make adjustments in our quality
    control, system engineering, and test readiness. I established
    a mission readiness task force to follow through on these
    adjustments, and delayed the interceptor deployment in 2005
    until we were satisfied with that progress. We are finishing
    the additional recommended qualification tests and have
    implemented much stronger engineering accountability,
    configuration management, and mission assurance processes.
        We've had a very successful flight test of our
    operationally configured long-range interceptor in December,
    and a very successful flight test generating intercept
    solutions from our Cobra Dane and Beale radars and their
    operational configurations, as well. These comprehensive
    reviews and our recent successes indicate that we should
    continue interceptor deployment. But I will pause again, if
    necessary.
        We recently emplaced three more ground-based interceptors
    in Alaska, and plan to have a total of 16 at sites in Alaska
    and California by December. Current plans support emplacement
    of 22 interceptors by the end of 2007, and the fielding of 10
    interceptors to a European missile field by 2011, which will
    expand our total available long-range inventory to over 50.
        Sensors are the eyes of this system. They detect, track,
    and discriminate threatening objects and provide critical cuing
    information to the system. In addition to the Cobra Dane and
    the Beale radars that I mentioned earlier, this year we
    completed construction of the very powerful sea-based X-band
    radar and began integrating it into the system. It is now
    undergoing tests near Hawaii and will depart this summer for
    Alaska. We are also deploying the first transportable forward-
    based X-band radar to our very important ally, Japan, where it
    will support both regional and homeland defense. In the United
    Kingdom, we expect the upgraded Fylingdales radar to achieve
    its initial capability this year, and in 2007 we will deliver a
    second forward-based X-band radar and initiate a major upgrade
    of the Thule radar in Greenland.
        By placing a third long-range interceptor field in Europe
    along with forward-based sensors in the region, we will meet
    two major objectives laid out by the President: Improved
    coverage of the United States and greatly improved protection
    of our allies and friends in Europe against a Middle East
    threat.
        The command, control, battle management, and communications
    infrastructure is the heart, soul and brain of our defensive
    capability. Without it, we simply couldn't execute the mission.
    It is a true force multiplier for missile defense. The global
    command and control foundation that we've established is
    unmatched in the world. We need to expand this effort to enable
    the integrated fire control which will allow us to mix and
    match sensors and weapons, greatly increasing our capability.
        Our aegis ships provide a flexible intercept capability
    against the shorter range ballistic missiles, as well as the
    long-range surveillance and track support to the system. This
    past year, we added 6 more surveillance and track destroyers,
    for a total of 11, and another engagement cruiser, for a total
    of two. By the end of 2007, we expect to have 10 engagement
    ships available, with 33 interceptors delivered.
        We also have an aggressive development program of work. In
    our terminal high altitude area defense, or THAAD, component,
    we are coming off a very successful test flight last November
    and are on track to field an initial capability against the
    short- to medium-range threats in 2008. To lay the foundation
    for global capability to meet future emerging threats, we plan
    to launch two space-tracking and surveillance system
    demonstration satellites in 2007, as well.
        And in our very challenging boost-phase defense area, the
    airborne laser reached all of its knowledge points last year
    when it achieved a full-duration laser at operational power and
    completed the initial beam-control/fire-control flight tests.
    Currently, we're installing the tracking and atmospheric
    compensation lasers and preparing the aircraft to accept the
    high-power laser modules in 2007.
        In our other boost-phase development activity, the kinetic
    energy interceptor (KEI), we are focused on demonstrating a
    mobile, very high acceleration booster that could give us
    improved capabilities to engage targets in the boost,
    midcourse, and terminal phases of flight. We've had a number of
    test successes and project the first flight of this interceptor
    in 2008. And with our multiple kill vehicle (MKV) system
    development, we will bolster long-range defenses by improving
    our abilities to engage multiple targets with a single
    interceptor.
        Now let me quickly turn to testing. The test schedule for
    this year and next continues at a rigorous pace. We will
    conduct 38 major system tests in 2006 and 37 major system tests
    in 2007. We plan two to three more long-range flight tests this
    year, including intercepts, two intercept flight tests of our
    aegis standard missile-3, and four flight tests of the terminal
    high altitude area defense interceptor.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, we certainly have our challenges, but I
    believe the program is on track. The successes that we've had
    over the past year bear this out. I greatly appreciate this
    subcommittee's continued support and patience, and I want to
    thank the thousands of Americans and our allies, both in
    Government and industry, who are working hard to make missile
    defense a success.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, General.
        [The statement follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Henry A. Obering III

        Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, distinguished
    Members of the Committee. It is an honor to be here today to present
    the Department of Defense's fiscal year 2007 Missile Defense program
    and budget. The Missile Defense Agency mission remains one of
    developing and progressively fielding a joint, integrated, and
    multilayered Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system to defend the
    United States, our deployed forces, and our allies and friends against
    ballistic missiles of all ranges by engaging them in all phases of
    flight. I believe we are on the right track to deliver the
    multilayered, integrated capabilities that are necessary to counter
    current and emerging threats.
        As was the case last year, our program is structured to balance the
    initial fielding of system elements with steady improvements using
    evolutionary development and a test approach that continuously
    increases our confidence in the effectiveness of the BMD system. This
    budget balances our capabilities across an evolving threat spectrum
    that includes rogue nations with increasing ballistic missile
    expertise.
        We are requesting $9.3 billion to support our program of work in
    fiscal year 2007. The $1.6 billion increase from 2006 reflects a return
    to the annual investment level targeted by the Department for ballistic
    missile defense and is indicative of the robust phase we are entering
    in the development and fielding of the integrated layered capability.
    Approximately $1 billion of this increase will be applied to fielding
    and sustainment, and $600 million to continued development of the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System. $2.4 billion of the fiscal year 2007
    request covers the continued incremental fielding and sustainment of
    long-range ground-based midcourse defense components; our short- to
    intermediate-range defense involving Aegis ships with their
    interceptors; and the supporting sensors, command, control, battle
    management and communication capabilities. This increase in funding for
    fielding and sustainment of nearly a billion dollars from last year
    reflects the success we have had across the program. About $6.9 billion
    will be invested in continued component improvements, system capability
    development, and testing.
        I would like to review our accomplishments, as well as our
    shortfalls, over the past year, explain our testing and fielding
    strategies, and address the next steps in our evolutionary ballistic
    missile defense program.

                         EVOLVING SECURITY ENVIRONMENT

        Proliferating and evolving ballistic missile systems and associated
    technologies continue to pose dangers to our national security. In 2005
    there were nearly eighty foreign ballistic missile launches around the
    world. Nearly sixty launches last year involved short-range ballistic
    missiles, approximately ten involved medium- and intermediate-range
    missiles, and about ten involved long-range ballistic missiles.
        North Korea and Iran have not relented in their pursuit of longer-
    range ballistic missiles. Our current and near-term missile defense
    fielding activities are a direct response to these dangers. There are
    also other ballistic missile threats today for which we must be
    prepared, and there will be others in the mid- to far-term. We must be
    ready to operate the ballistic missile defense system against new and
    unexpected threats.
        Our potential adversaries continue efforts to acquire ballistic
    missile systems and technology. Ballistic missiles were used against
    our forces, our allies and friends during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf Wars.
    When combined with weapons of mass destruction, they could offer our
    enemies an attractive counterbalance to the overwhelming conventional
    superiority exhibited by U.S. and coalition forces during those wars.
    We can expect that in the future our adversaries could use them to
    threaten our foreign policy objectives or pursue a policy of terrorism
    by holding our cities and other high value assets hostage. After all,
    those who support global terrorism can hide behind the threats posed by
    offensive missiles carrying highly destructive or lethal payloads. They
    will use them to try to deny our forces access to a theater of conflict
    or to coerce a withdrawal of our forces from that theater. Ballistic
    missiles provide a way for our adversaries to attempt to achieve some
    degree of strategic equality with us, especially at a time when
    ballistic missile defense is still striving to catch up with the
    progress made by ballistic missile offense over the past four decades.

                   MISSILE DEFENSE APPROACH--LAYERED DEFENSE

        We believe that layered defenses integrated by a robust command and
    control system, will improve the chances of engaging and destroying a
    ballistic missile and its payload in-flight. This approach to missile
    defense also makes the effectiveness of countermeasures much more
    difficult, since countermeasures designed to work in one phase of
    flight are not likely to work in another. It is much harder to overcome
    a complex, multilayered defense. Layered defenses, a time-honored U.S.
    approach to military operations, provide defense in depth and create
    synergistic effects designed to frustrate an attack.
        With the initial fielding in 2004 of the Ground-based Midcourse
    Defense components, the Aegis long range surveillance and track ships,
    and the first integrated command, control, battle management and
    communications (C2BMC) suites, we made history by establishing a
    limited defensive capability for the United States against a possible
    long-range ballistic missile attack from North Korea and the Middle
    East. With the cooperation of our allies and friends, we plan to evolve
    this defensive capability to make it more effective against all ranges
    of threats in all phases of flight and expand the system over time with
    additional interceptors, sensors, and layers.
        Since we cannot be certain which specific ballistic missile threats
    we will face in the future, or from where those threats will originate,
    our long-term strategy is to strengthen and maximize the flexibility of
    our missile defense capabilities. As we proceed with this program into
    the next decade, we will move towards a missile defense force structure
    that features greater sensor redundancy and sensitivity, interceptor
    capability and mobility, and increasingly robust C2BMC capabilities. In
    line with our multilayer approach, we will expand terminal defense
    protection and place increasing emphasis on boost phase defenses.
        We are effectively employing an evolutionary acquisition strategy
    to field multiple system capabilities while maintaining an aggressive
    test and development program. The Missile Defense Agency continues to
    evolve and refine desired capabilities, based on warfighter need and
    technology maturity, through sound risk management. Our goal continues
    to be one of fielding the best capabilities possible, on schedule, on
    time, and within cost, in order to address current and emerging
    threats.

                     COMPLETING THE FIELDING OF BLOCK 2004

        Since I last appeared before this committee, we have made a number
    of significant accomplishments to complete initial fielding of the
    Block 2004 capability. We have also fallen short in some areas. When we
    rolled this program out in 2002, we set out to deploy 10 Ground Based
    Interceptors in 2004 and another 10 in 2005. A booster motor plant
    explosion in 2003, which had a major impact across the missile defense
    program, and the need to step back and undertake a mission readiness
    review of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program following two test
    failures caused us to miss our fielding mark. I delayed the Ground-
    Based Interceptor deployment in 2005 and made changes based on the
    recommendations of the mission readiness review. I believe we are now
    back on track, but I will pause again if necessary. We recently
    emplaced three more Ground-Based Interceptors in silos at Fort Greely,
    Alaska, for a total of nine, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base in
    California. This progress is critical because we expect the Ground-
    based Midcourse Defense element to be the backbone of our national
    missile defense capability for years to come. Today we continue with
    interceptor fielding and plan to emplace additional Ground-Based
    Interceptors, for a total of sixteen by December of this year.
        This past year we also added a second Aegis engagement cruiser and
    delivered additional Standard Missile-3 interceptors to our evolving
    sea-based architecture to address short- and medium-range threats in
    the midcourse phase of flight. We did not advance as rapidly as we
    hoped. We needed to resolve technical issues associated with the third
    stage rocket motor and the solid divert and attitude control system to
    take full advantage of interceptor performance designed to pace the
    threat. However, we are close to the 10 to 20 sea-based interceptors we
    projected for delivery in our initial program. Right now, I am
    comfortable with where we stand in our sea-based interceptor deployment
    plans. We will continue to grow our inventory of Standard Missile-3
    interceptors for deployment aboard Aegis ships and, by the end of 2006,
    outfit three Aegis destroyers and one additional cruiser with this
    engagement capability. So, in addition to providing surveillance and
    tracking support to the integrated ballistic missile defense system,
    Aegis provides a flexible sea-mobile capability to defeat short- to
    intermediate-range ballistic missiles in the midcourse phase.
        In our sensors program, we upgraded the Beale Early Warning Radar
    in California. The Beale radar complements and works synergistically
    with the surveillance and tracking capabilities of the fully
    operational Cobra Dane radar in Alaska, and together they will help us
    defend against the longer-range threats coming out of East Asia. The
    Beale radar will play an instrumental role in tests this year to
    demonstrate the system's ability to intercept intercontinental-range
    missiles using operationally configured assets.
        This past year we added six more Aegis Long-Range Surveillance and
    Track destroyers to our force, for a total of eleven. These ships
    provide much sought-after flexibility in our architecture, giving us
    more time to engage enemy missiles and improving the performance of the
    entire system.
        We are making good progress in integrating the Sea-Based X-band
    radar into the system. It is the most powerful radar of its kind in the
    world and will provide the system a highly advanced detection and
    discrimination capability. This past January the radar completed its
    long journey from Texas, where it underwent extensive sea trials and
    high-power radiation testing in the Gulf of Mexico, to Hawaii. This
    spring its voyage continues to Adak, Alaska, where it will be home-
    ported and put on station.
        This past year the Forward-Based Radar, our transportable X-band
    radar, successfully acquired and tracked intercontinental ballistic
    missiles in tests conducted at Vandenberg Air Force Base. We are now
    preparing to deploy the radar to provide precision track and
    discrimination capabilities, which will improve regional and homeland
    missile defense capabilities.
        We also completed subsystem checkout of the Fylingdales radar in
    the United Kingdom and achieved high-power radiation. We conducted the
    necessary operator training at that site and are now in the middle of
    completing an important series of ground tests that are necessary to
    verify this system's capability, tests that had been deferred on the
    recommendations of the Mission Readiness Task Force. We expect to
    complete testing at Fylingdales later this year.
        We have an extensive command, control, battle management and
    communications infrastructure to support all these elements, and we are
    ready to provide complete operations and maintenance support to the
    warfighter. We have taken the first step in integrating the BMD system,
    which is necessary to establish an affordable and effective global,
    layered defense. We have installed hardware and software at the United
    States Northern Command (NORTHCOM), United States Strategic Command
    (USSTRATCOM), and United States Pacific Command (PACOM). C2BMC
    capabilities include basic deliberative crisis planning and common
    situational awareness at these Combatant Commands. In addition, we now
    provide common situational awareness directly to the President of the
    United States and the Secretary of Defense to aid in decision-making.
    In addition to fielding these suites, we also completed five major
    software release upgrades this past year, each improving the capability
    of the command, control, battle management and communications system.
        It is this global connective capability that allows us to combine
    different sensors with different weapons. For example, we are
    developing the Aegis BMD system so that it can support a ground-based
    interceptor launch by sending tracking information to the fire control
    system. A forward-deployed radar can cue and pass tracking information
    on to, for example, a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 unit, or a
    regionally deployed Terminal High Altitude Area Defense battery, or a
    Ground-based Midcourse Defense or Aegis BMD engagement ships. In other
    words, we want to be able to mix and match sensor and interceptor
    resources to give the system more capability by expanding the detection
    and engagement zones. Our ability to integrate all of the weapons and
    sensors into a single package that will use interceptors in the best
    location to make the kill gives us a critical multiplier effect.
        We work closely with U.S. Strategic Command and the Combatant
    Commanders to certify missile defense crews at all echelons to ensure
    that they can operate the ballistic missile defense system. We have
    exercised the command, fire control, battle management and
    communication capabilities critical to the operation of the system.
        We also are continuing to exercise the system to learn how best to
    operate it, and we have demonstrated our ability to transition smoothly
    from test to operations and back. In our exercises and tests, we have
    worked through a number of operational capability demonstrations in
    order to increase operational realism and complexity, certify crews and
    safety procedures, and demonstrate the operational viability of the
    system. The Missile Defense Agency will continue to coordinate with the
    warfighter to implement developmental upgrades and improvements in the
    system to maximize system capability. This is very important since we
    will continue to improve the capabilities of the system over time, even
    as we remain ready in the near-term to take advantage of its inherent
    defensive capability should the need arise.

                   BUILDING CONFIDENCE THROUGH SPIRAL TESTING

        We have consistently pursued a comprehensive and integrated
    approach to missile defense testing and are gradually making our tests
    more complex. Missile defense testing has evolved, and will continue to
    evolve, based on results. We are not in a traditional development,
    test, and production mode where we test a system, then produce hundreds
    of units without further testing. We will always be testing and
    improving this system, using a testing approach that cycles results
    into our spiral development activities. This approach also means
    fielding test assets in operational configurations. This dramatically
    reduces time from development to operations in a mission area where,
    until now, this nation has been defenseless.
        Last year, following the two launch aborts of the interceptor for
    the Ground-based Midcourse Defense element, I explained that we had
    several concerns with quality control and reliability; but we did not
    view the failures as major technical setbacks. In response to those
    failures, I chartered an independent team to review our test processes,
    procedures and management. The team concluded that the Ground-based
    Midcourse Defense program met the challenge of providing an initial
    defensive capability but found deficiencies in systems engineering,
    ground qualification testing, flight test readiness certification,
    contractor process control and program scheduling. The independent
    review team recommended that the Missile Defense Agency reorient the
    missile defense program to strengthen its emphasis on mission
    assurance.
        I established a Mission Readiness Task Force under Admiral Kate
    Paige to implement the corrective actions needed to ensure a return to
    a successful flight test program. The task force identified steps to
    strengthen our systems engineering and quality assurance processes and
    provide the reliability and repeatability necessary for operational
    success. As a result, we undertook a comprehensive review of these
    system processes at each step along the way. We are also undertaking
    the necessary ground and flight qualification tests to retire the risks
    uncovered by the independent review team and the Mission Readiness Task
    Force. To strengthen our test program, I diverted four long-range
    interceptors slated for operational use into testing, with the intent
    to replace them in 2007 if our test program was successful. Last year,
    I asked the committee to have patience, knowing that the system's basic
    functionality was not at risk. As a result of our aggressive actions, I
    believe that mission assurance and system reliability are now on track.
        We finished the year strongly with a string of test successes
    across the board. These successes continue to build confidence in our
    spiral development approach. In a major step forward, in September
    2005, we flew a threat representative target across the operational
    Cobra Dane radar and generated an intercept solution using the long-
    range fire control system. We then flew the operational configuration
    of the long-range interceptor in December 2005 and put the kill vehicle
    through its paces. We not only achieved all of the test objectives for
    that flight, but we also accomplished many of those objectives we
    identified for the next flight test scheduled for this spring. Last
    February, we exercised an engagement sequence that used the Upgraded
    Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base in California to provide
    tracking information to a simulated long-range interceptor from an
    operational site at Vandenberg. Based on the many tests we have
    conducted to date, including three successful flight tests of the
    operational long-range booster now emplaced in Alaska and California,
    we maintain our confidence in the system's basic design, its hit-to-
    kill effectiveness, and its inherent operational capability. We will
    continue to test this system to ensure it will remain mission ready.
        We continue to work closely with the Director, Operational Test &
    Evaluation, Operational Test Agencies, and Combatant Commanders to
    characterize the effectiveness and readiness of the system at every
    stage in its development and fielding. This year the fielded BMD system
    will undergo ever more challenging and operationally realistic testing.
        We will begin the important next step of testing our long-range
    ground-based defense with more operationally robust flight tests as a
    part of the integrated ballistic missile defense system. With the next
    tests involving the Ground-Based Interceptor, we will step up testing
    complexity and involve operational crews, operational interceptor
    launch sites, and operational sensors. These tests will involve an
    operationally configured interceptor launched from Vandenberg that will
    attempt to acquire and intercept a target missile launched out of the
    Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska. With the last two tests in this
    series, we will demonstrate the ability of the system to perform more
    refined acquisition and discrimination functions and the ability of the
    exo-atmospheric kill vehicle to divert toward the target and intercept
    it. We also plan to use tracking data from the Sea-Based X-band radar
    when it is available to feed its data into system tests and operations.
    In 2007, as we return our focus to fielding long-range interceptors, we
    plan one system intercept test and one flight test, both of which will
    further demonstrate the operationally configured interceptor.
        In our sea-based midcourse defense element, we have continued to
    ratchet up the degree of realism and reduce testing limitations. This
    past November, for the first time, we successfully used a U.S. Navy
    Aegis cruiser to engage a separating target carried on a threat-
    representative medium-range ballistic missile. A separating target is
    more challenging to engage because it can fly faster and farther than
    the boosting missile. In order to increase operational realism, we did
    not notify the operational ship's crew of the target launch time, and
    they were forced to react to a dynamic situation. We are planning two
    more Aegis interceptor flight tests in 2006. Last March, we conducted a
    very successful cooperative test with Japan involving a simulated
    target to demonstrate the engagement performance of a modified SM-3
    nosecone developed by the Japanese in the United States/Japan Joint
    Cooperative Research project. One of the upcoming U.S. Aegis intercept
    tests will again involve a separating warhead. In 2007 we plan to
    conduct two tests of the sea-based interceptor against short and
    medium-range targets.
        Flight-testing involving the redesigned interceptor for the
    Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) began last November when we
    successfully demonstrated the separation and operation of the
    production booster and kill vehicle. This year we will conduct four
    more tests to characterize performance of the new missile and the
    ability to integrate it into the BMD system. Later this year we will
    also conduct the first intercept test high in the atmosphere. In 2007
    we plan to conduct four intercept tests as part of our THAAD flight
    test program.
        Also planned in 2007 are two Arrow system flight tests and one
    Patriot combined developmental and operational test. The command,
    control, battle management, and communications infrastructure will be
    exercised in all of our system level tests.
        Ground tests, wargames and modeling and simulation help demonstrate
    interoperability, assess performance and specification compliance, and
    develop doctrine, tactics, techniques and procedures. In 2007 we will
    continue with our successful ground-testing, which involves warfighter
    personnel and test hardware and software in the integrated system
    configuration to demonstrate system connectivity and interoperability.
    Upcoming tests will verify integration of the sea-based, forward-based,
    and Fylingdales radars. The funds we are requesting also will support
    additional capability demonstrations and readiness demonstrations led
    by the warfighting community.

                   COMPLETING THE NEXT INCREMENT--BLOCK 2006

        To keep ahead of rogue nation threats, we continue to hold to the
    fielding commitments we made to the President for Block 2006, which
    include investment in the necessary logistics support and command,
    control, battle management and communications infrastructure. In 2006
    and 2007, we will build on the successes we had in 2005 to improve
    protection against a North Korean threat, provide protection against a
    threat from the Middle East, expand coverage to allies and friends,
    increase countermeasure resistance, and improve protection against
    short-range ballistic missiles. We are also planning to field more
    mobile, flexible interceptors and associated sensors to meet threats
    from unanticipated launch locations.
        For midcourse capability against the long-range threat, the Ground-
    based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element budget request for fiscal year
    2007 of $2.7 billion will cover continued development, ground and
    flight testing, fielding and support. This is about $125 million more
    than we budgeted for fiscal year 2007 in last year's submission. The
    risk-reduction work prescribed by the Mission Readiness Task Force has
    caused us to reduce the number of interceptors fielded in 2007. This
    request includes up to 4 additional ground-based interceptors, for a
    total of 20 interceptors in Alaska by the end of 2007, their silos and
    associated support equipment and facilities as well as the long-lead
    items for the next increment. The increase in fiscal year 2007 funding
    from last year to this year is attributed, in part, to increased
    sustainment, logistics and force protection requirements, as well as to
    other needs associated with preparing the system for operations. This
    budget submission also continues the upgrade of the Thule early warning
    radar in Greenland and its integration into the system.
        The Royal Air Force Fylingdales early warning radar in the United
    Kingdom will be fully integrated for missile defense purposes by fall
    2006. It will provide sensor coverage against Middle East threats.
        As part of our effort to make the system more robust, improve
    defense of our allies, and address threat uncertainties, we are
    continuing discussions with our allies in Europe regarding the
    deployment of radars and a third site for Ground-Based Interceptors.
    Later this year we will be able to give greater definition to this
    important evolutionary effort.
        To address the short- to intermediate-range threat, we are
    requesting approximately $1.9 billion to continue development and
    testing of our sea-based midcourse capability, or Aegis BMD, and our
    land-based THAAD terminal defense capability. System tests will involve
    further demonstrations of the sea-based interceptor, and we will
    continue enhancing the system's discrimination capability. We will
    continue Standard Missile-3 improvements. We added approximately $49
    million to the fiscal year 2007 request for Aegis BMD from last year to
    this year to address the Divert and Attitude Control System and other
    aspects of the system, including the development of a more capable 2-
    color seeker for the SM-3 kill vehicle. We will continue purchases of
    the SM-3 interceptor and the upgrading of Aegis ships to perform the
    BMD mission. By the end of 2007 we will have three Aegis engagement
    cruisers, seven engagement destroyers, and seven Long Range
    Surveillance and Track destroyers. These sea-based sensors and weapons
    will improve our ability to defend the homeland and our deployed troops
    and our friends and allies. In fiscal year 2007 we will initiate work
    with Japan for follow-on SM-3 development in order to increase its
    range and lethality. We also will continue the THAAD development effort
    that will lead to fielding the first unit in the 2008-2009 timeframe
    with a second unit available in 2011.
        We will continue to roll out sensors that we will net together to
    detect and track threat targets and improve discrimination of the
    target set in different phases of flight. In 2007, we will prepare a
    second forward-based X-band radar for operations. We also are working
    towards a 2007 launch of two Space Tracking and Surveillance System
    (STSS) test bed satellites. These demonstration satellites will perform
    target acquisition and handover and explore approaches for closing the
    fire control loop globally for the entire BMD system. In fiscal year
    2007 we will undertake initial satellite check-out and prepare for
    tests involving live targets. We are requesting approximately $380
    million in fiscal year 2007 to execute this STSS activity, and $402
    million for the Forward-Based Radar work.
        For the ballistic missile defense system to work effectively, all
    of its separate elements must be integrated by a solid command,
    control, battle management and communications foundation that spans
    thousands of miles, multiple time zones, hundreds of kilometers in
    space and several Combatant Command areas of responsibility. C2BMC
    allows us to pass critical information from sensors to provide input
    for critical engagement decisions. Combatant Commanders can use the
    C2BMC infrastructure to enhance planning and help synchronize globally
    dispersed missile defense assets. These capabilities also can provide
    our senior government leadership situational awareness of ballistic
    missile launches and defense activities.
        This C2BMC capability allows us to mix and match sensors, weapons
    and command centers to dramatically expand our detection and engagement
    capabilities over what can be achieved by the system's elements
    operating individually. We cannot execute our basic mission without
    this foundation.
        With this year's budget request for $264 million for the C2BMC
    activity, we will continue to use spiral development to incrementally
    develop, test, and field hardware and software improvements. We will
    press on with the development of the initial global integrated fire
    control to integrate Aegis BMD, the forward-based radar, and Ground-
    based Midcourse Defense assets. We plan to install additional planning
    and situational awareness capabilities to facilitate executive
    decision-making among the Combatant Commanders.
        The Missile Defense Agency is committed to delivering the best
    capabilities to the warfighter in a timely manner, and warfighter
    participation and input is a critical part in the engineering process.
    Today, the Army National Guard's 100th Missile Defense Brigade, Air
    Force's Space Warfare Center, and Navy ships in the Pacific Fleet are
    on station and operating the system. Our fiscal year 2007 request
    continues to fund critical sustainment and fielding activities and
    ensure that system developers have financial resources to support
    fielded components. We will continue to work collaboratively with the
    Combatant Commanders and the Military Services as the system evolves to
    define and prioritize requirements. Exercises, wargames, and seminars
    continue to be important collaboration venues. We will also continue to
    support training activities to ensure operational readiness, combat
    effectiveness, and high-level system performance.

                MOVING TOWARD THE FUTURE--BLOCK 2008 AND BEYOND

        There is no silver bullet in missile defense, and strategic
    uncertainty could surprise us tomorrow. So it is important that we
    continue our aggressive parallel paths approach to building this
    integrated, multilayered defensive system. There are several important
    development efforts funded in this budget.
        In executing our program we continue to follow a strategy of
    retaining alternative development paths until capability is proven--a
    knowledge-based funding approach. That means we are setting specific
    targets, or knowledge points, that the development efforts have to
    reach within certain periods of time. Knowledge points are not reviews,
    but discrete activities in a development activity that produce data on
    the most salient risks. The approach involves tradeoffs to address
    sufficiency of defensive layers--boost, midcourse, terminal; diversity
    of basing modes--land, sea, air and space; and considerations of
    technical, schedule, and cost performance. This is fundamental to how
    we execute the development program, because it enables us to make
    decisions as to what we will and will not fund based upon the proven
    success of each program element.
        For example, we are preserving decision flexibility with respect to
    our boost phase programs until we understand what engagement
    capabilities they can offer. We have requested approximately $984
    million for these activities in fiscal year 2007. This past year the
    revolutionary Airborne Laser (ABL) reached its knowledge points when it
    achieved a full duration lase at operational power and completed
    initial flight tests involving its beam control/fire control system.
    The program's knowledge points for 2006 include flight testing of the
    lasers used for target tracking and atmospheric compensation. This
    testing, which will test the entire engagement sequence up through the
    point where we fire the laser, will require use of a low-power laser
    surrogate for the high-power laser. Once we have completed modification
    of the aircraft which has begun in Wichita, Kansas, we will start
    installation of the high-power laser modules in 2007. This will provide
    us with the first ABL weapon system test bed and allow us to conduct a
    campaign of flight tests with the full system. In addition to
    installation of the high-power lasers, we will continue integration,
    ground, and flight test activities in fiscal year 2007 to support ABL's
    low-power beam control/fire control and battle management systems. We
    will be working towards a lethal demonstration of the weapon system
    against a boosting ballistic missile in 2008.
        We still have many technical challenges with the Airborne Laser.
    Yet the series of major achievements beginning in 2004, when we
    achieved first light and first flight of the aircraft with its beam
    control/fire control system, gives me reason to be optimistic that we
    can produce an effective directed energy capability. An operational
    Airborne Laser could provide a valuable boost-phase defense capability
    against missiles of all ranges.
        The Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) is a boost-phase effort in
    response to a 2002 Defense Science Board Summer Study recommendation to
    develop a terrestrial-based boost phase interceptor as an alternative
    to the high-risk Airborne Laser development effort. Last year we
    focused near-term efforts in our kinetic energy interceptor activity to
    demonstrate key capabilities and reduce risks inherent in the
    development of a land-based, mobile, very high acceleration booster. It
    has always been our view that the KEI booster, which is envisioned as a
    flexible and high-performance booster capable of defending large areas,
    could be used as part of an affordable, competitive next-generation
    upgrade for our midcourse or even terminal interceptors. A successful
    KEI mobile missile defense capability would improve significantly our
    ability to protect our allies and friends.
        This past year we demonstrated important command, control, battle
    management, and communications functions required for a boost intercept
    mission, including the use of national sensor data for intercept
    operations in the field. The key knowledge point for this program is
    the demonstration of a very high acceleration booster. We began a
    series of static firing tests of the first and second stages of the
    booster and had a successful firing this past January. We plan a flight
    test to verify the new booster in 2008.
        Development of the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) system will offer a
    generational upgrade to ground-based midcourse interceptors by
    increasing their effectiveness in the presence of multiple warheads and
    countermeasures. We are exploiting miniaturization technology to
    develop a platform with many small kill vehicles to engage more than
    one object in space. This effort will supplement other innovative
    discrimination techniques we are developing for use in the midcourse
    phase by destroying multiple threat objects in a single engagement. In
    2005 we made progress in the development of the MKV seeker, but
    resource constraints and technical shortfalls have caused a delay in
    this development effort. We are now planning to conduct the hover test
    in 2009. Our first intercept attempt using MKV is now scheduled for
    2012. We are requesting $162 million in fiscal year 2007 to continue
    the MKV development effort.

                          INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION

        The global nature of the threat requires that we work closely with
    our allies and friends to develop, field, and operate missile defenses.
    We have made significant progress in fostering international support
    for the development and operation of a ballistic missile defense system
    capable of intercepting ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases
    of flight. We have been working closely with a number of allies and
    friends of the United States to forge international partnerships. I
    would like to highlight a few of our cooperative efforts.
        The Government of Japan continues to make significant investments
    toward the acquisition of a multilayered BMD system, with capability
    upgrades to its Aegis destroyers and acquisition of the Standard
    Missile-3 interceptor. We have worked closely with Japan since 1999 to
    design and develop advanced interceptor components. This project
    culminated in the flight test of an advanced SM-3 nosecone earlier this
    year and ended this phase of our joint cooperative research.
    Additionally, the Missile Defense Agency and Japan have agreed to co-
    develop a Block IIA version of the SM-3 missile, which will
    significantly improve the kinematics and warhead capability. We also
    have agreed to deploy an X-band radar to Japan, which will enhance
    regional and homeland missile defense capabilities. In addition, Japan
    and other allied nations continue upgrading their Patriot fire units
    with Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles and improved ground support
    equipment.
        In addition to the Fylingdales radar development and integration
    activities, we are undertaking a series of cooperative technical
    development efforts with the United Kingdom. Newly installed
    situational awareness displays in the United Kingdom also are
    indicative of our close collaboration with our British allies in the
    missile defense area.
        Last year we signed an agreement with Denmark to upgrade the radar
    at Thule and integrate it into the system. This radar will play an
    important role in the system by providing additional track on hostile
    missiles launched out of the Middle East.
        We will continue to expand cooperative development work on sensors
    and build on our long-standing defense relationship with the government
    of Australia. In April 2005 we concluded a Research, Development, Test
    and Evaluation agreement to enable collaborative work on specific
    projects, including high frequency over-the-horizon radar, track fusion
    and filtering, distributed aperture radar experiments, and modeling and
    simulation.
        We are continuing work with Israel to implement the Arrow System
    Improvement Program and enhance its capability to defeat longer-range
    ballistic missile threats emerging in the Middle East. This past
    December Israel conducted a successful launch and intercept of a
    maneuvering target using the Arrow missile. The United States and
    Israel are co-producing components of the Arrow interceptor missile,
    which will help Israel meet its defense requirements more quickly and
    maintain the U.S. industrial work share.
        We also have been in discussions with several allies located in or
    near regions where the threat of ballistic missile use is high for the
    forward placement of sensors, and we continue to support our North
    Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partners in conducting a
    feasibility study to examine potential architecture options for
    defending European NATO population centers against longer-range missile
    threats. This work builds upon ongoing work to define and develop a
    NATO capability for protection of deployed forces. We have other
    international interoperability and technical cooperation projects
    underway and are working to establish formal agreements with other
    governments.

                                    CLOSING

        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank this committee for its continued
    support of the Missile Defense Program. When I appeared before you last
    year, we faced numerous challenges. Over the past year, the dedicated
    men and women of the Missile Defense Agency and our industrial partners
    met these challenges head-on and overcame the difficulties we
    experienced in 2004 and early in 2005. The result was that in 2005 we
    made significant progress. We had a series of successful tests that are
    unparalleled in our development efforts to date. In 2006 and 2007 I am
    confident that we will continue this success. I am proud to serve with
    these men and women, and the country should be grateful for their
    unflagging efforts.
        There have been many lessons learned, and I believe the processes
    are in place to implement them as we field follow-on increments of the
    system. I also believe that our program priorities foster long-term
    growth in multilayered and integrated capabilities to address future
    threats. There certainly are risks involved in the development and
    fielding activities. However, I believe we have adequately structured
    the program to manage and reduce those risks using a knowledge-based
    approach that requires each program element to prove that it is worthy
    of being fielded.
        Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

        Senator Stevens. General Dodgen.

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL LARRY J. DODGEN,
                COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY SPACE AND
                MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND/U.S. ARMY FORCES
                STRATEGIC COMMAND, UNITED STATES ARMY
        General Dodgen. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for your ongoing support of our
    military and for the opportunity to appear before this
    distinguished panel.
        This subcommittee continues to be a great friend of the
    Army and the missile defense community, particularly in our
    efforts to field missile defense forces for the Nation and our
    allies. I appear before this subcommittee in two roles. The
    first is as the warfighting member of the joint missile defense
    team. I am the Commander of the Joint Functional Component
    Command for Integrated Missile Defense, or JFCC-IMD, a part of
    United States Strategic Command. The JFCC is a joint user
    representative working closely with the Missile Defense Agency,
    services, and combatant commanders to ensure that our national
    goal of developing, testing, and deploying an integrated
    missile defense system is met.
        The second is as an Army commander for missile defense and
    a proponent for the ground-based midcourse defense system. In
    my role as the JFCC-IMD commander, I directly support the U.S.
    Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) commander in planning the global
    missile defenses. The JFCC is truly joint, manned by Army,
    Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel, and is
    headquartered at the Joint National Integration Center at
    Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado.
        This arrangement allows us to leverage the existing robust
    infrastructure and our strong partnership with the Missile
    Defense Agency to execute the IMD mission. In the past year,
    the JFCC-IMD has aggressively executed USSTRATCOM's global
    mission to plan, coordinate, and integrate missile defense. In
    collaboration with geographical combatant commanders, we are
    developing the IMB plans that integrate theater and national
    assets to provide the best protection. STRATCOM, in partnership
    with MDA, is setting the stage to evolve the ballistic missile
    defense system (BMDS) beyond its current capabilities to
    provide a more robust missile defense for the homeland,
    deployed forces, friends, and allies.
        I would now like to highlight the Army fiscal year 2007
    budget submission for air and missile defense (AMD) systems.
        The President's budget, presented to Congress on February
    6, includes approximately $1.57 billion with which the Army
    proposes to perform current Army AMD responsibilities and focus
    on future development and enhancement of both terminal phase
    and short-range AMD systems. The Patriot system remains the
    Army's mainstay theater air and missile defense system and our
    Nation's only deployed land-based short- to medium-range
    ballistic missile defense capability. Today's Patriot force is
    a mixture of configured units. To maximize our capabilities and
    better support the force, the Army is moving toward updating
    the entire Patriot force to the PAC-3 configuration.
        The medium extended air defense system, or MEADS, is a
    cooperative development program with Germany and Italy to
    collectively field an enhanced ground-based air and missile
    defense capability. The MEADS program will enable the joint
    integrated air and missile defense community to move beyond the
    critical asset defense designs we see today. MEADS will provide
    theater-level defense of critical assets and continuous
    protection of a rapidly advancing maneuver force as part of a
    joint integrated AMD architecture.
        As I believe you are aware, the Patriot/MEADS combined
    aggregate program (CAP) has been established. The objective of
    the CAP is to achieve the objective MEADS capability through
    incremental fielding of MEADS major end items in the Patriot.
    Patriot/MEADS CAP is an important capability that will operate
    within MDA's BMDS. The Patriot and PAC-3 CAP research
    development and acquisition budget request for fiscal year 2007
    is approximately $916 million. This request procures 108 PAC-3
    missiles, purchases spares for the system, and reflects the
    necessary Patriot development to keep the system viable as we
    pursue development of the CAP capabilities.
        The fiscal year 2007 President's budget also includes a
    $264 million request for joint land attack cruise missile
    defense elevated netted sensor system, a program developing
    unique lightweight fire-control and surveillance radars to
    detect, track, and identify cruise missile threats. With the
    program funding, we expect first unit equipped occurring by
    2011. Surface launched advanced medium range air to air missile
    (SLAMRAAM) will provide a cruise missile defense system to
    maneuver forces within an extended battle space and a beyond-
    line-of-sight engagement capability critical to countering the
    cruise missile and unmanned aerial vehicle threats we foresee
    in the future.
        I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on these
    important matters, and I look forward to addressing questions
    you and other members of the subcommittee may have. I also
    respectfully request that my written statement be submitted for
    the record.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. The statement has been included in the
    record, General.
        [The statement follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Larry J. Dodgen

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and Members of the Committee, thank
    you for your ongoing support of our military and for the opportunity to
    appear before this distinguished panel. This Committee continues to be
    a great friend of the Army and the missile defense community,
    particularly in our efforts to field missile defense forces for the
    Nation and our allies. I consider it a privilege to be counted in the
    ranks with Lieutenant General Obering as an advocate for a strong
    global missile defense capability.
        I appear before this committee in two roles. The first is as an
    Army Commander for missile defense and a proponent for the Ground-based
    Midcourse Defense (GMD) System. The second is as a soldier in the Joint
    Missile Defense Team and Commander of the Joint Functional Component
    Command for Integrated Missile Defense (JFCC-IMD), a part of the United
    States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), and the joint user
    representative working closely with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA),
    other services, and Combatant Commanders to ensure that our National
    goals of developing, testing, and deploying an integrated missile
    defense system (IAMD) are met.
        Mr. Chairman, as I reported last year, Army soldiers are trained,
    ready, and operating the GMD System at Fort Greely, Alaska, and the
    Joint National Integration Center (JNIC) at Schriever Air Force Base in
    Colorado. Just a couple of years ago, we activated the GMD Brigade in
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, and a subordinate GMD Battalion at Fort
    Greely. These soldiers, as part of the Joint team, are our Nation's
    first line of defense against any launch of an intercontinental
    ballistic missile toward our shores. I am proud to represent them along
    with the other members of the Army's Air and Missile Defense (AMD)
    community.

                              USSTRATCOM JFCC-IMD

        The JFCC-IMD was established in January 2005 as one element of
    USSTRATCOM and reached full operational capability on early in 2006.
    This organization complements the capabilities inherent in other
    USSTRATCOM JFCCs and Joint Task Forces (JTFs) which plan, coordinate,
    and integrate USSTRATCOM's other global missions of Space and Global
    Strike, Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), Net Warfare
    and Global Network Operations, and the newest element, the USSTRATCOM
    Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).
        The JFCC-IMD is manned by Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps
    personnel. It is headquartered at the JNIC at Schriever Air Force Base,
    Colorado. This arrangement enables us to execute the IMD mission by
    leveraging the existing robust infrastructure and our strong
    partnership with our collocated MDA team.
        In the past year, USSTRATCOM, through the JFCC-IMD, has
    aggressively executed its mission to globally plan, coordinate, and
    integrate missile defense. In collaboration with geographic Combatant
    Commands, we are developing IMD plans within a regional area of
    operations in the context of USSTRATCOM's global mission instead of
    individual theater plans.
        Based on guidance from the Commander, USSTRATCOM, we have also
    developed plans to take existing MDA assets, currently in test and
    development status, and rapidly transition them, in an emergency, to an
    operational warfighting capability. This allows USSTRATCOM to provide
    additional critical IMD capabilities to the Combatant Commands in times
    of crisis. Examples of this capability include early activation and
    deployment of the AEGIS SM3 Missile and the sea-based and Forward Based
    X-band Transportable (FBX-T) Radar to operational locations in the
    Pacific region, where, by the end of 2006, they will join a global
    network of radars. USSTRATCOM initiated planning efforts to integrate
    the capabilities of all the JFCCs to support the ``New Strategic
    Triad,'' as it determines the next steps needed to fulfill our
    commitment to an integrated missile defense capable of defending the
    United States, its deployed forces, friends, and allies.
        JFCC-IMD works closely with the other JFCC elements of USSTRATCOM
    and the Combatant Commands to make Offense-Defense Integration, ISR,
    and the other mission areas integral aspects of how we fight, to ensure
    the optimal application of limited resources.
        The IMD community, led by the USSTRATCOM Commander and his Unified
    Command Plan Authority, has conducted numerous capability and readiness
    demonstrations, integrated flight and ground tests, and Combatant
    Command exercises to develop and validate the operators' tactics,
    techniques, and procedures. As we work toward our system's future
    operational capability, increased warfighter involvement in the testing
    and exercising of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) ensures
    both the viability of the defense and the confidence of its operators.
        USSTRATCOM, through the JFCC-IMD, is leading the planning of global
    missile defenses with the development of the global IMD Concept of
    Operations (CONOPS). The CONOPS relies on the development and
    coordination of engagement sequence groups (ESGs) and the advocacy of
    desired global missile defense characteristics and capabilities.
        USSTRATCOM-developed global IMD CONOPS serves as a roadmap for the
    warfighting community to guide the development of more detailed IMD
    planning and execution. These CONOPS contains two fundamental
    principles. First, the geographic component commanders execute the IMD
    fight within their Areas of Responsibility (AORs). Second, multi-
    mission sensors are centrally tasked by USSTRATCOM Commander to
    optimize their use in forming ESGs.
        As a key requirement for IMD planning, the identification of ESGs
    as the optimal pairing of sensor and weapon capabilities required to
    provide active missile defense for the designated defended area is
    critical. The ESGs are a tool the IMD community uses to help operate
    the BMDS by balancing operational necessity with the realities of
    ongoing research, development, and testing in the near term. As more
    elements and components are made available, ESGs will serve to optimize
    our global missile defense system.
        The USSTRATCOM commander represents all the component commands as
    the advocate for IMD. He executes this responsibility at two levels.
    First, for those elements already deployed, Headquarters, USSTRATCOM
    J8, in collaboration with the JFCC-IMD, conducts the Warfighter
    Involvement Process (WIP) to evaluate the adequacy of the current
    capabilities of the BMDS. This process can encompass anything from
    identifying simple human interface changes or modifications to
    developing refined planning tools. These needs are prioritized by
    USSTRATCOM for review and approval and are provided to MDA for
    consideration. The second level of advocacy focuses on future
    capability needs. These future elements and components will provide
    additional capabilities that enable a more robust, reliable, and
    capable system.
        The critical element that ties the entire BMDS system together is
    the Command and Control Battle Management Communications, or C2BMC.
    C2BMC is an essential evolutionary component of the BMDS that will
    greatly enhance both planning and execution capabilities. C2BMC
    contributes to all phases of BMD from optimizing planning to
    synchronizing the automated execution of the BMDS. Upgrades to the
    Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communications System will
    extend situational awareness capability to Pacific Command and European
    Command by the end of 2006.
        As our planning processes have matured over the past year, JFCC-
    IMD's innovative use of new collaborative planning capabilities in
    major combatant command exercises has demonstrated the effectiveness of
    distributed crisis action planning. JFCC-IMD was able to support the
    Combatant Commands with development of new defense designs and
    optimized locations for BMDS in exercises such as USSTRATCOM's GLOBAL
    LIGHTNING and PACOM's TERMINAL FURY.
        Through our partnership with MDA, the Services, and the warfighters
    at the Combatant Commands, USSTRATCOM is setting the stage to evolve
    the BMDS beyond its current capability to that of providing more robust
    missile defense for the homeland, deployed forces, friends and allies.
    We are actively engaged with MDA and the Services in the development
    and deployment of BMDS elements and components ensuring a layered,
    multi-phase operational capability for the Combatant Commands.

       AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE--AN OVERVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 ARMY
                               BUDGET SUBMISSION

        In addition to deploying a GMD system, MDA, the Services, and the
    Combatant Commanders are focused on improving Theater Air and Missile
    Defense (TAMD) capabilities within the context of the evolving BMDS in
    Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Joint Integrating Concept.
    Both GMD and TAMD systems are vital for the protection of our homeland,
    deployed forces, friends, and allies. Air and missile defense is a key
    component in support of the Army's core competency of providing
    relevant and ready land power to Combatant Commanders.
        I would now like to focus on the Army's fiscal year 2007 budget
    submission for Air and Missile Defense (AMD) systems. The President's
    Budget, presented to Congress on February 6th, includes approximately
    $1.57 billion with which the Army proposes to perform current Army AMD
    responsibilities and focus on future development and enhancements of
    both terminal phase and short-range AMD systems. In short, the Army is
    continuing major efforts to improve the ability to acquire, track,
    intercept, and destroy theater air and missile threats.
        The Army, as part of the Joint team, is transforming its AMD forces
    to meet the increasingly sophisticated and asymmetric threat
    environment encountered by the Joint warfighter. The Army has the lead
    to conduct the IAMD Capabilities Based Assessment. This analysis will
    comprise the front end of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
    Joint Capabilities Integration Development System. The study will
    identify key joint, agency and combat command IAMD capability gaps and
    will recommend doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership
    and education, personnel and facilities (DOTMLPF) transformation
    actions. The document is envisioned to fulfill time-phased IAMD needs
    across the range of military operations.

                        INTEGRATED AMD SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS

        The Army is transforming its Air Defense Force from its current
    separate systems architecture to a component-based, network-centric,
    IAMD System of Systems (SoS). The IAMD SoS program focuses on systems
    integration, common battle command and control, joint enabling
    networking, and logistics and training, to ensure operational
    requirements, such as force protection, lethality, survivability,
    transportability and maneuverability are achieved. The IAMD SoS program
    will employ an evolutionary acquisition strategy consisting of a series
    of increments leading to the objective capability. This SoS approach
    calls for a restructuring of systems into components of sensors,
    weapons and Battle Management Command, Control, Communications,
    Computers, and Intelligence (BMC4I) with a standard set of interfaces
    among these components using a standardized set of networks for
    communication.
        Technology insertions to the IAMD SoS will continue throughout each
    increment as high-payoff technologies mature and are ready for
    integration. Incremental development of the IAMD SoS allows the Army to
    field new or improved capabilities to warfighters faster, by producing
    and deploying systems and components as the technologies mature.
    Funding in the proposed fiscal year 2007 President's Budget supports
    the first steps in achieving an IAMD SoS architecture.

                       AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE BATTALIONS

        As part of Air Defense Transformation, the Army is creating
    composite AMD battalions. These battalions address capability gaps,
    which permit us to defeat cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles
    (UAVs) while maintaining our ability to defend critical assets from the
    ballistic missile threat. The composite AMD battalions will capitalize
    on the synergies of two previously separate disciplines: short-range
    air defense and high-to-medium altitude air defense. The current plan
    is to organize eight battalions as PATRIOT-pure units, five battalions
    as AMD battalions, and create one battalion as a maneuver AMD battalion
    which will soon be our first pure SLAMRAAM Battalion. This
    transformation is underway.
        Within the context just provided, allow me to briefly discuss each
    of the programs that support the Army's AMD Transformation.

                   TERMINAL PHASE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSES

        The PATRIOT/Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) capability
    is designed to counter theater ballistic missile threats in their
    terminal phase in addition to cruise missiles and other air-breathing
    threats. Combining these systems with the Theater High Attitude Area
    Defense (THAAD) System capability being developed by MDA with a planned
    fielding in fiscal year 2009, brings an unprecedented level of
    protection against missile attacks to deployed U.S. forces, friends,
    and allies well into the future.
    PATRIOT/PAC 3 and MEADS Overview
        Mr. Chairman, since the combat debut of the PATRIOT AMD System
    during Operation Desert Storm, the Army has continued to implement a
    series of improvements to address the lessons learned. During Operation
    Iraqi Freedom (OIF), we saw the debut of the improved PATRIOT
    Configuration-3 system, including the effective use of the Guidance
    Enhanced Missile and the PATRIOT Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Missile.
    PAC-3 is the latest evolution of the phased materiel improvement
    program to PATRIOT. Combining developmental testing and operational
    data, this program has enabled the development and deployment of a new
    high-velocity, hit-to-kill, surface-to-air missile with the range,
    accuracy, and lethality necessary to effectively intercept and destroy
    more sophisticated ballistic missile threats. Today's PATRIOT force is
    a mixture of PAC-2 and PAC-3 configured units. To maximize the full
    advantage of the PAC-3 capabilities, the Army is moving toward pure-
    fleeting the entire PATRIOT force to the PAC-3 configuration.
        As I highlighted last year, PATRIOT saved many lives when defending
    against Iraqi ballistic missile attacks during OIF. However, there were
    some operational deficiencies. The Army has undertaken steps to correct
    them and address lessons learned. The Army has pursued two thrusts--
    identification and execution of a $41.6 million program for nine
    specific OIF fixes and continued aggressive participation in joint
    interoperability improvements in situational awareness. All funded OIF
    fixes are on schedule to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2007,
    pending any materiel release issues.
        The PATRIOT system remains the Army's mainstay TAMD system and our
    nation's only deployed land-based short-to-medium range BMDS
    capability. The current PATRIOT force must be maintained through
    sustainment and recapitalization efforts until 2028, until the MEADS
    begins fielding, projected to begin in 2017.
        MEADS is a cooperative development program with Germany and Italy,
    to collectively field an enhanced ground-based AMD capability. The
    MEADS program, which supports the President's goal for international
    cooperation in missile defense, will enable the joint integrated AMD
    community to move beyond the critical asset defense designs we see
    today. MEADS will provide theater level defense of critical assets and
    continuous protection of a rapidly advancing maneuver force as part of
    a Joint IAMD architecture. Major MEADS enhancements include 360-degree
    sensor coverage, a netted and distributed battle manager that enables
    integrated fire control, and a strategically deployable and tactically
    mobile, AMD system. While the PAC-3 missile is the baseline missile for
    the international MEADS program, the Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE)
    missile is being developed to meet U.S. operational requirements. MSE
    will provide a more agile and lethal interceptor that increases the
    engagement envelope.
    Combined PATRIOT/MEADS Approach
        With the approval of the Defense Acquisition Executive, the Army
    embarked on a path to merge the PATRIOT and MEADS programs,
    establishing the PATRIOT/MEADS Combined Aggregate Program (CAP) with
    the objective of achieving the MEADS capability through incremental
    fielding of MEADS major end items into PATRIOT. PATRIOT/MEADS CAP is an
    important capability that will operate within MDA's BMDS. It is in
    fact, the number one Army priority system for defense against short and
    medium-range Tactical Ballistic Missiles and air breathing threats
    (i.e. cruise missiles and UAVs). The PATRIOT/MEADS CAP will be capable
    of operating within a joint, interagency, and multinational
    interdependent operational environment. It will provide wide-area
    protection at strategic, operational, and tactical levels.
        PATRIOT/MEADS CAP will also provide BMC4I, introduce lightweight
    deployable launchers, upgrade the PAC-3 missile, and eventually provide
    the full MEADS capability to the entire force. The MEADS system offers
    a significant improvement in the ability to deploy strategically while
    maintaining tactical mobility. The system uses a netted and distributed
    architecture with modular and configurable battle elements, which
    allows for integration with other Army and Joint sensors and shooters.
    These features and capabilities will allow MEADS to achieve a robust
    360-degree defense against all airborne threats. By establishing the
    CAP, the joint integrated AMD architecture has become more robust.
    First, MEADS enhancements are integrated into the existing system.
    Second, as lessons are learned from the present missile defense
    capability, they will be incorporated into the MEADS follow-on system.
    We are confident that this path will provide our service members,
    allies, friends, and the Nation with the most capable AMD system
    possible.
        The Army and the entire missile defense community continue to
    strive to improve our nation's missile defense capabilities. The
    PATRIOT and PAC-3/MEADS CAP research, development, and acquisition
    budget request for fiscal year 2007 is approximately $916.5 million.
    This request procures 108 PAC-3 missiles, purchases spares for the
    system, and reflects the necessary PATRIOT development to keep the
    system viable as we pursue development of PAC-3/MEADS CAP capabilities.

                             CRUISE MISSILE DEFENSE

        In the world today, there exists a real and growing threat from
    land attack cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are inherently very
    difficult targets to detect, engage, and destroy because of their small
    size, low detection signature, and low altitude flight characteristics.
    When armed with a WMD warhead, the effect of a cruise missile could be
    catastrophic. It is clear that the required systems and capabilities
    necessary to counter this emerging threat need to be accelerated to
    field a cruise missile defense (CMD) capability as soon as possible.
    The Army's CMD program is an integral piece of the Joint Cruise Missile
    Defense architecture, and we are proud of our contributions to this
    effort. Critical Army components of the Joint CMD architecture are
    provided by the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated
    Netted Sensor (JLENS), the Surface-Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-
    to-Air Missile (SLAMRAAM), the Patriot MSE missile, and an integrated
    fire control capability. We are also working closely with the Joint
    community to assure development of doctrine that synchronizes our
    military's full capabilities against the cruise missile threat.
    JLENS Overview
        JLENS brings a critically needed capability to address the growing
    CM threat. To support an elevated sensor, the JLENS program is
    developing unique lightweight fire control and surveillance radars to
    detect, track, and identify CM threats. JLENS will support engagements
    using the SLAMRAAM/Complementary Low Altitude Weapon System (SLAMRAAM/
    CLAWS), Navy Standard Missile, and PATRIOT/MEADS weapon systems. JLENS
    uses advanced sensor and networking technologies to provide precision
    tracking and 360-degree wide-area, over-the-horizon surveillance of
    land-attack cruise missiles. The fiscal year 2007 JLENS funding request
    of $264.5 million supports development of a full JLENS capability, with
    the first unit equipped by 2011.
    SLAMRAAM Overview
        SLAMRAAM will provide a CMD system to maneuver forces with an
    extended battlespace and a beyond line-of-sight, non-line-of-sight
    engagement capability critical to countering the CM threat, as well as
    UAV threats. SLAMRAAM uses the existing Joint AMRAAM missile currently
    used by the Air Force and the Navy, thereby capitalizing on the Joint
    harmony that the Department of Defense (DOD) is striving to achieve.
    The Army and the Marine Corps are also executing a joint cooperative
    development for SLAMRAAM/CLAWS to meet the needs of soldiers and
    Marines in Homeland Defense as well as overseas deployments. The fiscal
    year 2007 funding request of $49 million supports the scheduled Initial
    Operational Capability (IOC) target of 2011.
    Sentinel Radar Overview
        The Sentinel Radar is an advanced, three-dimensional, phased array
    air defense radar and a critical component in the Army's ability to
    conduct air surveillance for the maneuver force. Sentinel is a small,
    mobile battlefield radar that supports the joint air defense sensor
    network in detecting cruise missiles, UAVs, and helicopter threats,
    thereby contributing directly to the overall Single Integrated Air
    Picture (SIAP) and supporting multiple Homeland Defense missions. Its
    Enhanced Target Range and Classification (ETRAC) radar upgrades will
    enable it to support engagements at extended ranges and reduce the time
    required to perform target classification. Additionally, these upgrades
    support next generation combat identification for friendly air, thereby
    reducing the possibility of fratricide and providing an enhanced
    positive friendly and civil aviation identification capability. The
    fiscal year 2007 funding request of $17.6 million provides for joint
    identification and composite sensor netting development efforts, four
    ETRAC system upgrade kits, and development and integration of
    improvements to support joint interoperability.

              AIR, SPACE, AND MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL

        The Army is increasing its command and control capabilities on the
    battlefield. The Army's Air and Missile Defense Commands (AAMDCs) will
    help integrate TAMD operations, by integrating, coordinating, and
    synchronizing Joint attack operations, active defense, passive defense,
    and C4 operations in the theater, and also globally tie into our JFCC-
    IMD.
        Concurrent with the creation of AMD composite battalions, the Army
    has developed, and is now in the process of fielding, air defense
    airspace management (ADAM) cells throughout the force. ADAM cells will
    perform four missions: plan AMD coverage, contribute to third-dimension
    situation awareness and understanding, provide airspace management, and
    integrate operational protection. With an emphasis on receiving and
    sharing the Joint air picture from multiple sources and assets through
    the battle command network, ADAM cells will provide commanders with
    situational awareness as well as the traditional friendly and threat
    air picture, enabling commanders to effectively manage their aerial
    assets. ADAM cells are already being fielded to the Army to meet
    modularity requirements, with two ADAM cells at the Division
    Headquarters and one to every Brigade in the Army, to include both the
    active and reserve forces. This high-priority system has been supported
    through supplemental appropriations to this point. The fiscal year 2007
    funding request of $49.5 million provides 15 ADAM Cells for the active
    and reserve components.
        Also in the past year, the Army activated the 94th Air and Missile
    Defense Command, supporting the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) theater
    of operations. With the 94th AAMDC activation, there are three Army AMD
    Commands; two in the active component and one in the reserve component.
    The 94th AAMDC, designed for Joint and multinational operations, will
    provide for missile defense in the Pacific theater and will assist in
    planning theater-level air and missile defenses. The 94th AAMDC will
    provide the PACOM commander with a more robust theater-based
    capability. Moreover, the unit's presence in the Pacific adds depth,
    because its capability will be readily available to the warfighting
    commander.
        The Joint Tactical Ground Stations (JTAGS), forward deployed today
    in European Command (EUCOM), Central Command (CENTCOM), and PACOM, are
    providing assured missile warnings to Combatant Commanders and assigned
    forces through a direct downlink from space-based infrared assets into
    the joint theater communications architecture. In addition to
    protecting the deployed force, these systems alert the BMDS
    architecture and enhance attack operations. The fiscal year 2007
    funding request of $24.9 million sustains the forward deployed JTAGS
    units supporting Joint warfighters and postures the Army to participate
    with the Air Force in a future ground mobile system compatible with the
    Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) and follow-on sensors. The planned
    Multiple Mission Mobile Processor (MP3) Program is being restructured
    due to the delays in the SBIRS schedule.

                   COUNTER-ROCKET, ARTILLERY, MORTAR (C-RAM)

        A significant danger in OIF/OEF today is posed by insurgents
    employing indirect-fire tactics of quick-attack, low-trajectory, urban-
    terrain-masked rocket, artillery, and mortar (RAM) strikes against U.S.
    forward operating bases in Iraq. To combat this threat, the Army
    developed C-RAM, an integrated solution of capabilities to provide
    warning and intercept of RAM threats. C-RAM provides a holistic
    approach to the Counter-RAM mission. Horizontal integration across the
    core functions--command and control, shape, sense, warn, intercept,
    respond and protect--is providing an integrated modular and scalable
    capability. This capability provides timely warning of mortar attacks,
    intercept and defeat of incoming rounds, and accurate location of
    insurgent mortar crews, enabling a rapid, lethal response. C-RAM takes
    advantage of existing systems and capabilities, combining them in a SoS
    architecture to support the warfighter on today's battlefield. The
    current C-RAM solution is truly Joint, in that it uses fielded systems
    from the Army, Navy and Air Force along with a commercial-off-the-shelf
    (COTS) system. C-RAM has been supported through supplemental
    appropriations. The Army will request funding for continued C-RAM
    fielding in the upcoming supplemental request, and the C-RAM program
    will be included in the Army's POM beginning in fiscal year 2008.

                          DIRECTED ENERGY INITIATIVES

        The Army continues to explore directed energy capabilities for
    weapon system development and integration into Army Transformation
    applications. High Energy Laser (HEL) systems have the potential of
    being combat multipliers, meeting air and missile defense needs in the
    future and enhancing current force capabilities, such as addressing the
    RAM threats. The ability of a HEL system to shoot down RAM targets has
    been repeatedly demonstrated, with mature chemical laser technologies
    proven by the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) program.
        Meanwhile, the Army's fiscal year 2007 science and technology
    funding request of $32.8 million supports HEL technology development
    focused on solid state laser technologies that will offer electric
    operation and compatibility with the Future Combat System (FCS) by the
    year 2018. The Army is participating in a Joint high-powered solid
    state laser program with the Office of the Secretary of Defense High
    Energy Laser Joint Technology Office and the other Services to pursue
    several candidate solid state laser technologies with the operating
    characteristics necessary for weapon system development. In fiscal year
    2007, while leveraging the Joint program, the Army is initiating a HEL
    Technology Demonstrator (HELTD) that will, by fiscal year 2013, have
    the ability to shoot down RAM threats as a stepping stone toward
    deployment of HELs in a FCS configuration. Ultimately, HELs are
    expected to complement conventional offensive and defensive weapons at
    a lower cost-per-shot than current systems.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman, the Army, a full contributing member of the Joint
    team, is relevant and ready, fighting the war on terrorism, deployed in
    Southwest Asia and elsewhere, and deterring aggression throughout the
    world, while transforming to meet future threats. With its
    responsibilities for GMD and PATRIOT/MEADS, the Army is an integral
    part of the Joint team to develop and field the BMDS in defense of the
    Nation, deployed forces, friends, and allies. In my role as the Joint
    Functional Component Commander for Integrated Missile Defense, I will
    continue the development of a Joint BMDS capability to protect our
    warfighters and our Nation. The Army has stepped up to the land-attack
    cruise missile defense challenge by aggressively developing the joint,
    integrated, and networked sensor-to-shooter architecture necessary to
    defeat the emerging threat. The fiscal year 2007 budget proposal
    continues the transformation of the Army's ASMD Force to support the
    Army's Future Force, the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense
    System, and our global BMDS, building on the ongoing success of our
    theater AMD force in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Transformation will
    continue to define the characteristics of the emerging ASMD force and
    determine how it can best support the Future Force operating in a
    Joint, interagency, and multinational environment.
        I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on these important
    matters and look forward to addressing any questions you or the other
    Committee members may have.

                         MISSILE DEFENSE FLIGHT TESTING

        Senator Stevens. General Obering, the Graham panel
    recommended intensifying the flight and ground testing of your
    systems. And I am told that the Inspector General pointed out
    there were some issues concerning network communications
    security. Now, it seems that you have changed the confidence in
    the deployed system at both Greely and Vandenberg. As I
    understand it, and staff tells me, your plans call for only one
    ground-based missile defense interception in this year we're in
    now, 2006. Is that right?
        General Obering. Sir, we have three more flight tests that
    we have planned. We know that two of those will be before the
    end of the calendar year 2006, based on our current
    projections.
        Senator Stevens. That's calendar 2006----
        General Obering. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. One will be over in----
        General Obering. Yes, Chairman. One, most likely, will
    slide into the early part of calendar year 2007. We will be
    flying against targets in all of those flights. This next
    flight that will occur to--the mid part to the latter part of
    July, we will have a target, but the interceptor's not that
    primary objective of that mission, because this will be the
    first time that we are able to match the radar, the Beale
    operational radar, with the kill vehicle characterization, the
    seeker characterization. So, while an intercept could occur,
    it's not the primary objective. We will fly against a target
    later this fall which--in which an intercept will be the
    primary objective, and then we will also fly against a target
    in the third flight test, which, as I said, will probably move
    on into 2007.
        Senator Stevens. General Dodgen, is this system on alert
    right now?
        General Dodgen. Mr. Chairman, currently the system is not
    on alert, however, we do have some capability that we can reach
    and put up at the Nation's disposal, if called.
        Senator Stevens. Well, what unit has operational control,
    then, if it's not on alert?
        General Dodgen. I command the unit, sir, at Colorado and at
    Alaska, as an Army commander, and they are operationally under
    the commander of Northern Command, who is charged with our
    homeland defense.
        Senator Stevens. Well, then, operationally, General
    Obering, are you satisfied with the number of interceptors and
    the various assets you have, surveillance and capabilities? Is
    this system ready now?

                             OPERATIONAL READINESS

        General Obering. Senator, if we had to use the system in an
    emergency, as I've said before, I fully--I believe that it
    would work, based on what we have done to date in our testing,
    and that the previous testing we conducted with the actual
    intercepts using a prototype of the kill vehicle that we did in
    the 2000 to 2002 timeframe, that the recent tests that we
    conducted this past year do nothing--I mean, do a lot more to
    bolster our confidence in the system, as well, because we
    actually flew the operational configuration of the interceptor
    that we have in the silo, and we also, for the first time, used
    the actual track information from an operationally configured
    radar--in this case, Beale--as part of our flight test. And
    that--the results of those tests were actually much more
    encouraging than we had originally even planned. The accuracy
    of that radar track and the ability of the system to accept
    that met all of our expectations. So, I feel confident that the
    system would work, if necessary. And, as General Dodgen can
    tell you, all of the operators have been trained and certified,
    and are ready, in that regard.
        Senator Stevens. General Dodgen, you mentioned upgrading
    all of the Patriots to PAC-3 level. Is that funded?
        General Dodgen. It is not funded, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. In this budget?
        General Dodgen. It is not funded in this budget.
        Senator Stevens. When do you intend to budget--fund it?
        General Dodgen. The reason it was not funded in this budget
    is, that we just did a recent review of our worldwide posture
    of the Patriot system, a review of Iraqi Freedom, and also the
    timeline to MEADS, which is the system of the future where we
    want to go. When we did this review with the chief, it became
    clear that our operational requirements overseas and the
    ability to operate succinctly and from different places, we
    needed the ``pure fleet.'' In other words, we needed to take
    our last three battalions and bring them to Config-3, where we
    were holding those battalions in Config-2 until MEADS came on.
    So, the chief made a decision a couple of months ago that we
    needed the ``pure fleet,'' and told us to do that by 2009. So,
    you'll begin to see that in the next budget cycle that we
    submit.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.

                                 AIRBORNE LASER

        General Obering, we're pleased with the report on the
    airborne laser. Is there enough money in this bill, the request
    of--for 2007, to meet the key milestones you have to meet, in
    terms of that program?
        General Obering. Yes, sir. And what we are shooting for
    there, of course--we will roll the aircraft out, here, in about
    1 month, with the tracking lasers installed and the atmospheric
    compensation lasers installed. We will begin a series of ground
    testing this summer, and then we go to flight testing in the
    fall with that aircraft, where we will use, initially, a
    surrogate of the high-energy laser to make sure that we've got
    the jitter and the beam control completely addressed. Then we
    plan to take the high-energy laser modules and move them on the
    aircraft, beginning in 2007, and shoot toward a lethal shoot
    down of a boosting missile in the 2008 timeframe. So, yes, sir,
    what we have funded in the program will get us to that.
        Senator Stevens. Well, you call for funding a second
    aircraft, modification of the 747. Is that in this budget, too?
        General Obering. Yes, sir. The--across our future year
    defense plan (FYDP), it is. We have not allocated the long-lead
    items for that second aircraft yet, because what we want to do
    is make sure that we were able to take all the results of this
    testing that we'll be doing in the next 2 years, and fold that
    into the design of that second aircraft. So, we want to make
    sure we've gotten all of the lessons learned, and we need
    basically what we call a design turn between that and the
    procurement of the second aircraft.
        Senator Stevens. But do you have enough money in this
    budget, now, to meet the needs for that second aircraft, as far
    as the program is concerned that you have scheduled for this
    fiscal year?
        General Obering. Based on the schedule that we have laid
    out, yes, sir, we have enough money to do that.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. General Dodgen, we are very much encouraged
    by your success on the Aegis Missile Defense Program. Six out
    of seven intercepts is quite an impressive record. Assuming
    that the success continues, I would assume that it will be
    deployed. And, when that happens, who will be in charge--the
    Navy or will it be a national asset?
        General Dodgen. Of the SM-3 missile, Senator? The vision
    right now is that the Navy will man that system, and it'll be
    aboard the fleets. Currently, there are some missiles in
    Pacific Command (PACOM). JFCC is actually planning the command-
    and-control relationships with the combatant commander to bring
    that capability into the family of ballistic missile defense
    systems. So, we're very encouraged by its performance. It has
    regional reach in its capabilities against these threats,
    combined with the Patriot system, and ultimately when the THAAD
    gets here, it'll be a tremendous combination of capabilities
    that we'll have in PACOM and in our other combatant commander
    regions.

                  TERMINAL HIGH-ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE PROGRAM

        Senator Inouye. You've mentioned terminal high-altitude
    area defense (THAAD). It's been very successful recently.
    You're going to be finishing your testing at White Sands. Where
    do you go from there?
        General Dodgen. Well, the testing done by the Missile
    Defense Agency, actually we are somewhat constrained, as I
    understand, by the testing that we do at White Sands, so we'll
    need more battle space in order to test against the threats we
    perceive for THAAD. And so, we'll go into the Pacific test
    range to do those things that we need to. General Obering could
    probably elaborate on that a little more, sir.
        General Obering. Yes, sir. We have a very aggressive
    program on track right now in our testing there. We will finish
    up the White Sands testing and then move out to the Pacific
    missile test range. Everything that we can see is on track. In
    fact, we have--the next flight will be tomorrow, of that
    system. And we're very encouraged by the progress that we've
    made to date.

                       KINETIC ENERGY INTERCEPTOR PROGRAM

        Senator Inouye. General Obering, 3 years ago your agency
    began the kinetic energy interceptor program. This is a
    multibillion dollar program that began as a boost-phase
    program. Over the last few years, the program has shifted. We
    have heard that it does everything from boost to midcourse to
    land and sea based, and it could be the replacement for the
    interceptors at Greely and Vandenberg. Can you straighten out
    the record and tell this subcommittee what MDA's intentions are
    for the KEI program?
        General Obering. Yes, sir. The KEI program started, as you
    said, 3 years ago, and it started at the recommendation of the
    Defense Science Board, because they felt that the airborne
    laser program, while it was very high payoff with respect to
    its directed energy, it was also very high risk from a
    technical perspective. And so, they recommended that we have a
    backup basically for the--for that program. So, what that
    indicated is that we needed a very, very high acceleration
    booster to be able to reach out in that boost phase, that very
    quick boost phase, to intercept the boosting threat missile. As
    we got into the program and we realized what that capability
    entails, that means that with that high acceleration, you also
    have a much-expanded footprint in a terminal role, for example,
    and you could also apply that in the midcourse, as well.
        So, what we're trying to do is be good stewards of the
    taxpayers' money. If we're developing this very high
    acceleration booster for the boost phase, could it be applied
    in other phases, as well, in other uses? The only thing you
    have to change is, you have to--you have to make sure that you
    integrated a different seeker as part of the kill vehicle. So,
    that's what we were looking for as--how could we exploit as
    much as we can of this capability?
        So, as it exists today, it is, in fact, still an
    alternative for our boost-phase defense. And if it pans out--
    and it--we will know in fiscal year 2008, when we have planned
    for the first flight of that very high acceleration booster--if
    it pans out, then it could be applied to the other phases, as
    well. So, we're trying to keep an eye for the future to make
    sure that we have all of our bases covered. But what we're
    trying to do is take advantage of that very high acceleration.
        The other advantage it has is, it is a mobile missile. It
    is canisterized, and it is mobile. It is designed to be both
    land based and sea based. And, there again, you could take
    advantage of that mobile capability to be able to augment or
    bolster your overall ballistic missile defense system where you
    may need it worldwide. So, this is a system that you could fly
    into a location, for example, and provide long-range
    protection--coverage against long-range threat missiles and
    very high speed missiles. And so, it became very attractive
    from that perspective.
        But to make sure we've set the record straight, as you say,
    it is still our boost-phase defense alternative. We're still
    focused on the knowledge point in 2008, and then we will
    preserve our flexibility to determine what we would like to do,
    based on the achievement of those knowledge points.
        Senator Inouye. Is the funding request sufficient to keep
    this on track?
        General Obering. Yes, sir. The President's budget request
    is sufficient to keep this program on track.

                                COUNTERMEASURES

        Senator Inouye. One of the most difficult challenges facing
    the program is developing methods to overcome enemy
    countermeasures. There have been suggestions that we are
    building a very expensive system that can be foiled by an
    inexpensive countermeasure. How do you respond to that?
        General Obering. Well, first of all, Senator, the system
    that we're fielding today does not have a robust capability
    against very complex countermeasures, as we have stated in the
    past. However, the systems and the components that we're
    bringing online this year, for example, and the work that we
    have, being able to net together the sensors, and the
    algorithms that we've developed to install those in these
    sensors, get us very far down that path to be able to meet that
    very complex threat.
        In addition, we have a very important program that we call
    the Multiple Kill Vehicle Program. And what that does is, it
    takes a single interceptor and enables it to destroy multiple
    credible objects, so that you can handle the much more complex
    countermeasures and the much more complex threats suites that
    we may face in the future. And so, we are very much
    appreciative of that, the challenge that that represents. We,
    by the way, have probably these nations' leading experts in
    countermeasure, in counter-countermeasure technology. We have a
    very robust countermeasure test program. We actually fly
    missiles with very complex countermeasures on them, and we test
    our radars' and our sensors' capability to discriminate and to
    sort through those. And that's all part of this program. We
    want to make sure that we are not fielding a system that will
    only work against very simple threats, that we are, in fact,
    keeping an eye toward the future and keeping an eye for the
    robustness of this. And I'm very encouraged by what we have
    done in that area.
        Senator Inouye. And your funding request is sufficient to
    carry out this program?
        General Obering. Yes, sir, as long as we get the
    President's budget request, especially for the Multiple Kill
    Vehicle Program, which is that catchall, so to speak.
        Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, may I request that my other
    questions be submitted?
        Senator Stevens. Yeah. I'd appreciate it if you'll respond
    to the questions that are just submitted to you in writing.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        General Obering. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.

                 GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE DEFENSE QUALITY CONTROL

        General Obering, a recent Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) missile defense report raised some doubt about the
    quality of the GMD kill vehicles. What actions have you taken
    to ensure that our ground-based midcourse interceptors are
    highly reliable?
        General Obering. Well, Senator, first of all, we have
    revamped the way that we are doing quality control across the
    program, and especially for the GMD, the EKV program.
        Senator Shelby. It's paid off, too, hasn't it?
        General Obering. Yes, sir, it has. In fact, the initial
    report--or the reports that I've got back as recent as just a
    couple of weeks ago about the changes that have been made now
    in the production facilities, for example, in Tucson and other
    areas, are very, very encouraging. We think that we've gotten
    over the hump there.
        What it primarily had to do with, by the way, is making
    sure that we had accountable engineering processes being
    applied, and we had folks accountable for the individual tail
    numbers that were going through the facility, and that we also
    had a much stronger supply-chain management approach to be able
    to control the quality of the vendors and the suppliers, and
    all of that is in place. We've also deployed more than 24
    mission assurance representatives across the Nation in these
    facilities, working day to day with the contractors. And so, in
    fact, I've had at least one CEO of a major defense corporation
    say that our mission assurance program is the best he'd ever
    seen, and he's actually incorporating that as part of his own
    internal documents.

                       KINETIC ENERGY INTERCEPTOR PROGRAM

        Senator Shelby. I'm glad to hear that.
        General Obering, the MDA budget request of $9.3 billion not
    only supports fielding missile defense capabilities, as you
    well know, but also funds the development of advanced
    technologies to make missile defense more robust and more
    effective. I believe our national defense needs to fully fund
    technology development in order to remain in front of the
    threat. One program currently threatened with cuts in the 2007
    budget, as I understand it, is the Kinetic Energy Interceptor
    Program. Would you address how KEI makes missile defense more
    robust? And what is the impact to the ballistic missile defense
    system if this program isn't fully funded?
        General Obering. Well--yes, Senator----
        Senator Shelby. To you both.
        General Obering. Yes, Senator. As I mentioned earlier, that
    is our program, which is an alternative to the airborne laser
    program. While both of those programs are currently on track,
    we won't know until we reach the knowledge point, in 2008, as
    to whether we can actually lethally shoot down a boosting
    missile with the airborne laser, and whether we can attain the
    very high acceleration that we need out of that KEI program.
    So, if we were to sustain the cuts that have been proposed for
    the KEI program, it removes that flexibility, number one, and
    it prematurely forces us to----
        Senator Shelby. You need that flexibility, do you not?
        General Obering. Yes, sir, because I can't tell you right
    now with confidence that the airborne laser could be an
    operational system. We may be able to technically shoot down a
    missile, but it may not be operationally viable, and we have a
    long way to go there. And it's making great progress, but I
    would not like our options limited too prematurely at this
    point.
        Senator Shelby. How much more money would you need for
    this, with this particular program?
        General Obering. Well, Senator, the President's budget
    request for 2007, I think, is about $386 million for the KEI
    program, and we need all of that.
        Senator Shelby. Need all of it.
        General Obering. Yes, sir.

                         MULTIPLE KILL VEHICLE FUNDING

        Senator Shelby. The multiple kill vehicle, as both of you
    know well, an initiative to provide increased effectiveness
    against potential countermeasures during midcourse engagement.
    It's presently under development. The 2007 request of $164
    million is a considerable increase from the 2006 request of $82
    million. General, will you be able to execute the funding of
    this requested increase? And what progress in MKV do you expect
    to realize in 2007? I think this is progress here, but what do
    you plan to do with it?
        General Obering. Yes, sir. Well, we actually have laid a
    divert and attitude control system test in the 2007 timeframe
    for that program--again, a key knowledge point for the program.
    We have transitioned and moved the management of that program,
    by the way, from the Washington area down to the Huntsville
    area, in terms of how we're executing that management. And so,
    I have no doubt that we'll be able to fully leverage the money
    that we've requested to be able to get us to--the next
    knowledge point is a hover test of that vehicle in 2009. And,
    again, as I mentioned with Senator Inouye, it is very, very
    important to be able to address emerging threats that we may be
    faced with in the future.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        General Dodgen, the 2007 budget request includes proposed
    funding for long lead items necessary for GMD interceptors 41-
    50. From your warfighter perspective, General, what would these
    additional interceptors provide, in terms of an increased
    ballistic missile defense capability? Is this request
    warranted? Do you need it?
        General Dodgen. Senator, I think they're very much
    warranted. I think the missile count, as strategically located
    as Fort Greely is----
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        General Dodgen [continuing]. To go east and west----
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        General Dodgen [continuing]. It's all about how many rounds
    you have in the ground, and the reach of those particular
    rounds. And our shot doctrine calls for us to use potentially
    more than one interceptor against a warhead. And so, we
    potentially could use every one of those rounds.
        Senator Shelby. That's just smart, isn't it?
        General Dodgen. It is smart. We have, in addition to that,
    our joint capability-mix studies played those full inventories
    of munitions and verified that we'll need every one of those
    rounds for the threats that we'll be facing.
        Senator Shelby. Well, you can't afford to be too thin when
    you're defending something, can you?
        General Dodgen. That's correct, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might have some
    additional questions for the record.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to dwell on just a little bit of the development of
    the entire system and where we're going and to complete the
    mission. I've had an opportunity to visit facilities, as you
    well know, and also it appears to me, when we dwell on the
    development, I think, of the Patriot, the PAC-3, in the--and
    the Navy SM-3. We're not only developing a tactical weapon, but
    now--we have a weapon now that could probably go strategic as
    this develops out.
        I have some concerns about it, because I'm from Montana,
    and if you guys miss, you put us into business----
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. Up there. And so, we're--as
    those--these systems--can you comment on how you're using these
    multiple parallel paths, really, to create a competition or
    synergy for our ground-based terminal missile system programs,
    because we understand that competition does create a certain
    synergy, and how those two programs play out? General Obering,
    I--yes.

                                LAYERED DEFENSE

        General Obering. Yes, sir. Well, first of all, we are
    designing the system so that we have layers of defense that
    work together, so we can take a sea-based interceptor, like the
    SM-3, and the radar with the aegis program, and integrate that
    into the long-range defense system that is based in Alaska,
    California, and, of course, Colorado Springs. And so, it is
    designed to work together to be able to integrate these
    capabilities and greatly expand the detection and engagement
    zones over what we would have individually.
        Now, what you're referring to in the multiple paths is
    that--for example, with airborne laser and the kinetic energy
    interceptor, we have options that we can execute within the
    boost phase--in the boost phase, for example, to be able to
    make sure that we don't have all our eggs in one basket. And
    that's why I think it would be premature to cut either one of
    those programs until we get to those knowledge points.
        We also have laid in several midcourse capabilities against
    the long range and the Aegis, for example, with the shorter-
    range threats. We have planned and have funded in the budget
    the ability to engage the longer-range threats with the sea-
    based interceptor and the midcourse, as well. That's our SM-3
    block-2 capability. So, where we can, we like to make sure that
    we have options and flexibility. And we also are integrating
    all of these capabilities together to ensure that we get the
    most that we can out of the system.
        Senator Burns. Well, you were going down the path where
    each one of them sort of had their niche.
        General Obering. Yes, sir.
        Senator Burns. General Dodgen could probably address that.
        General Dodgen. Sir, I would add to that by saying,
    operationally, what we're doing is divorcing sensors from their
    normal role as a system and using them across all the systems
    we have so that multiple sensors can shoot different
    interceptors. When you do that, first of all, you probably
    don't need as many systems. That's what the joint capability-
    mix study is telling us. And, second of all, you bring great
    flexibility in the ability to adjust the system for a
    particular threat and in a regional fight. So, we definitely
    plan to integrate the SM-3 missile onboard ships, with THAAD,
    and with Patriot in the regional fight, and some of those same
    sensors will be feeding the GBM system that's at Fort Greely
    and gaining great significance to that. And we're about dealing
    with the command and control to make that all work succinctly
    for the future.

                                 ARROW PROGRAM

        Senator Burns. Let's talk about sharing of technology a
    little bit. I think most of us are pleased with the success of
    the Israeli Arrow, that missile in this past year. In fact,
    they had a pretty successful shoot the other--about 1 month
    ago, I understand. This subcommittee has funded that technology
    development with the Israeli Missile Defense Agency, and we're
    pleased that their system is really improving its capability,
    in light of recent developments in Iran. We--you know, it may
    play a larger role than we really think right now.
        Would you care to comment on the benefits of funding the
    Arrow program to your agency? And how has the sharing of
    technology--has it enhanced what we're trying to do here?
        And either one of you can----
        General Obering. Yes, sir. Well, first of all, we've
    learned an awful lot collaboratively together, working with the
    Israelis. We have a series of exercises that we execute with
    them on an annual basis that we learned even more. It played
    out very well in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where we actually had
    integrated and combined the Arrow system with the Patriot
    system to be able to provide coverage during the Operation
    Iraqi Freedom. But we've also, as you say, enjoyed the
    technology benefits. We've actually been able to incorporate
    some of the developments on the Arrow program back into other
    interceptor programs within the Missile Defense Agency. We
    continually do that. We continue to look at their advances in
    software, advances in human/machine interface, and those types
    of things, to see what advantages that we can take. So, it very
    much is a collaborative effort. And, of course, we need that
    even more so in the future as we expand the opportunities for
    missile defense cooperation. And we have several countries that
    are very much interested across the world, and that continues
    to grow almost on a weekly basis.
        Senator Burns. Well, I've had the opportunity to visit not
    only what they're doing there, but also what we're doing down
    in the South Pacific, General. And we stopped in down there
    in--now, let's follow up on that. How positive has it been with
    our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) friends? What--
    and especially fielding the Joint Tactical Ground Station, the
    JTAGS--have we had the same kind of cooperation with our NATO
    friends?
        General Dodgen. Of course, I command the JTAGS, and----
        Senator Burns. Yes.
        General Dodgen [continuing]. Right now they're positioned
    with the combatant commanders to provide early warning for
    those forces. And we have a JTAGS located in Stuttgart with
    European Command (EUCOM). That early warning has been provided
    to our allies in some regard. And so, there is a great deal of
    cooperation there.
        Senator Burns. Are they holding up their share of the
    funding?
        General Dodgen. Well, the funding's totally United States
    at this particular time, but I think I'm encouraged by the fact
    that NATO is beginning to step up their missile defense
    efforts, and, to the most part, start to study and actually
    come forward with some recommendations as to what they want to
    field. They're certainly not where we are in missile defense, I
    would say, but they're certainly talking with us at the
    military level.
        Senator Burns. Well, I get the feeling, you know--we're
    really stretched for money, you know, in funding some of these
    programs, and I'm starting to ask myself, Why should we be
    funding their programs? The American taxpayers should know why
    we're doing that. Is there a reason? Because it is costly.
        General Obering. Senator, if I could address, from a
    different geographic area, Japan, we have entered into a co-
    development program pending Japanese approval, for a block-2
    SM-3. And that is a--an equal share in the costing of that,
    which is great for us, and great for Japan, because we are able
    to get that capability, basically, at half the investment to
    the United States. So, that is, I believe, the model, and is
    something that we are very much interested in, in other
    programs, as we proceed in the future, too, to be able to
    leverage our allies.
        General Dodgen. I would add to that, that certainly other
    NATO nations have the Patriot system, like we do. And we have a
    great operational cooperation with them in their systems, in
    their force. Germany and The Netherlands and now the Greeks all
    have Patriot, and Spain is procuring a system. In addition to
    that, we're partners in MEADS with the Germans and the Italians
    to develop the next generation. But those are the short-range
    terminal systems, and cooperation in the longer-range systems
    is something that will be forthcoming, I believe.
        Senator Burns. Well, the reason I asked the question is
    because we have--at the present time, we are facing an enemy
    that offers none of those kind of weapons that would endanger
    our security, both to our troops that are deployed, in the
    Middle East or wherever, or our domestic security. And so, we
    have to look at those. Should we be funding these systems, when
    basically we're in support of boots on the ground, so to speak?
    I come from a different mentality. I served in the Marine
    Corps, and so my mentality is the support for the troops that's
    on the lines, so to speak. And so----

                                MISSILE DEFENSE

        General Obering. Senator, one thing I'd like to address
    there is, this missile defense, as you started out your
    statement, about the overall system----
        Senator Burns. Yes.
        General Obering [continuing]. It is designed not just to
    defend the United States, but also our deployed forces. And, as
    you know, they are deployed worldwide. And, as these ballistic
    missile threats continue to proliferate, I think it's important
    that we do provide that protection, whether they be from the
    shorter-range missiles, as well as the longer-range missiles,
    because, as we say, as we see this threat evolve, they will
    reach those capabilities. And that's why we're trying to expand
    out the umbrella of our defensive coverage to be able to give
    ourselves that flexibility and to prevent a nation--a threat
    nation from either coercing or threatening our allies or
    ourselves, so we can do something about the ballistic missiles
    that could be married with a weapon of mass destruction.
        Senator Burns. Well, I think the American taxpayer would
    thank you for that answer. I agree with you, but those are
    questions that come up, you know, when we talk about the
    security or the support of our troops on the ground. I have
    concern for those men and women, because they are really
    standing in harm's way. I thank you for your answer.
        General Obering. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran, do you have questions,
    sir?
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And let
    me join you and other members of the subcommittee in welcoming
    our witnesses to the hearing today.
        We have a genuine need for continuing to support a strong,
    robust, workable missile defense system across a broad range of
    threats that we see that are present today and that are
    evolving for future concern--and give us concerns for the
    future, as well. These are big, complicated, challenging jobs
    that you have, and we appreciate the dedication and the efforts
    that you are making to discharge your responsibilities and help
    carry out these important activities in the development and
    deployment of missile defense systems. So, thank you. That's
    the first point I want to make.
        Second, it appears that we are making good progress in
    developing technologies, improving old technologies, in helping
    stay ahead of the curve. And I think that investment of dollars
    is very important. We need to be careful not to waste money.
    And you realize that. We're concerned about keeping spending
    under control, making sure we're getting what we pay for.
        And, in that connection, I was interested in your
    observations about some of the programs I know that you've
    already talked about, the airborne laser and some of the other
    programs, maybe the kinetic energy interceptor, which are still
    under development, but with hope that we can deploy systems of
    this type to help ensure that we have the best possible
    protection.

                              COMMAND AND CONTROL

        Now, one thing that I was curious about is the command and
    control infrastructure. You're developing an integrated
    ballistic missile defense system, but the infrastructure of
    command and control is very important. I wonder what your
    assessment--of this is at this point. General Obering, could
    you give us an update or an overview on the progress you are
    making in integrating command and control capability for
    missile defense?
        General Obering. Yes, sir, be happy to.
        First of all, I have to say that I am extremely pleased
    with the progress that we have made in that area. If you stop
    and think about it, there's no other mission area that I'm
    aware of where you have to get simultaneous situational
    awareness across as many as 11 time zones or more, across the
    various combatant commanders and the geographic commanders,
    again, simultaneously, do the deconfliction and to the battle
    management that will have to be done in the missile defense
    arena, which is a--very much of a challenge.
        But, in fact, we have tackled that. We have rolled out a
    capability that is currently not only here in the National
    Capital but also at Omaha, at STRATCOM, at U.S. Northern
    Command (NORTHCOM) in Colorado Springs, out at PACOM, in
    Hawaii. We have plans to also continue to expand into EUCOM and
    U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and to give those capabilities--
    those commanders that capability, as well. And so, from a
    command and control perspective, I think the program is very
    much on track.
        We have requested--the money we have requested in the
    President's budget is important for that work. It is important
    to continue that, because that is the heart and soul and the
    brain of the system. We can't do the necessary integration, as
    General Dodgen mentioned, of the sensors and the interceptors
    that we mentioned earlier, without that capability. And this is
    truly a force multiplication effect. For example, if we can
    integrate a land-based radar using this command and control and
    battle management capability with sea-based interceptors, you
    cut down on the number of ships that you need to provide
    protection for a given defended area dramatically. And that
    same effect happens over and over again through the system,
    where you can do this mixing and matching of sensors with
    weapons. And so, we think that it is very, very important.
        So, I think that the money that we've asked for this in the
    President's budget for 2007 is very much--is very important and
    very critical to the program.
        General Dodgen. Senator, could I add to that?
        Senator Cochran. Yes, please.
        General Dodgen. The command and control for the initial
    capability that we fielded in Fort Greely, Alaska, what we've
    called limited defensive operations, very mature tactics have
    been taught through, the foreign doctrine is there, the command
    and control through Northern Command is there. What we're about
    now in a JFCC is expanding that globally through the other
    combatant commanders. And what we do is, we understand the new
    capabilities, such as the sea-based SM-3 capability and when
    the THAAD comes on. We bring the warfighters in from PACOM and
    EUCOM. We fight the system in games. We develop a concept of
    how we're going to operate. We validate that concept. And then
    we feed those means in which we want to operate in terms of
    functionality to MDA, so that they can produce the command and
    control battle management communications (C2BMC) terminals that
    will populate the geographical combatant commanders. That
    process is just starting to go globally. And the funding will
    put that functionality into those command and control terminals
    that we'll use to fight the global fight.
        Senator Cochran. That leads me to my next question, which
    is about international cooperation. It's important for us to
    maintain a spirit of cooperation in order for us to deploy
    radars and other capabilities around the world that make the
    whole system work. At Fylingdales, for example, we have the
    radar there that England has permitted us to continue to use.
    Are there any other examples of problems that we're having in
    the international area?
        General Dodgen. Sir----
        General Obering. Well, sir, in terms of the overall--not
    only situational awareness, but the willingness to cooperate
    and to collaborate in missile defense, I have seen that
    dramatically increase just in my tenure as director of the
    Missile Defense Agency.
        To give you just one little anecdotal metric there, we
    cohost a missile defense international conference every year.
    The last one was held in Rome, last September. We had over
    1,000 delegates at this conference. We had more than 20 nations
    represented there. And we see an upswell of interest and of
    cooperative effort across the board. We have countries, like
    you said, the United Kingdom, who are working with us and
    hosting radar sites and allowing us to be able to use that
    information with respect to the missile defense system. We have
    countries like Japan who are investing their own money,
    significant amounts of it, over $1 billion a year, in missile
    defense, and are working with us not only procuring systems
    from us, but also co-developing new systems with us. And so,
    across the board, I see a dramatic increase in that
    collaboration and that cooperation.
        But I think it's only reasonable, in light of what we see
    happening with the threat. We know that there is a lot of
    activity, nearly 80 missile launches last year around the world
    in the threat communities. We know that this proliferation
    continues. We know it is a weapon of choice. When you marry it
    with a weapon of mass destruction, the ballistic missile
    becomes a convenient delivery vehicle, whether you're talking
    about short range or long range. And so, I think it's not only
    important, I think it's critical that we get this continued
    international development and cooperation.

                       EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM

        Senator Cochran. One of the essential parts of this entire
    process is maintaining intelligent satellites and launching
    these satellites. You have the Evolved Expendable Launch
    Vehicle Program, which has produced a couple of families of
    capability. These have had only a few initial launches. But you
    were hoping to reduce the overall cost by agreements with
    commercial customers who are likewise interested in these
    capabilities. Tell us what the status of that is and what you
    foresee as the need, in terms of budget requirements, funding
    of this Expendable Launch Vehicle Program.
        General Obering. Senator, I don't have the Expendable
    Launch Vehicle Program. If you're referring to--I have the
    Multiple Kill Vehicle Program. I also have the space tracking
    and surveillance system programs. But the Expendable Launch
    Vehicle Program is an Air Force-run program. We benefit,
    obviously, from launch services that could be provided for our
    space satellites when we are getting ready to deploy those and
    getting ready to put those up.
        Senator Cochran. So, this is not a part of your budget
    request.
        General Obering. No, sir.
        Senator Cochran. I understood that $937 million is being
    requested in the budget for the Evolved Expendable Launch
    Vehicle Program.
        General Obering. No, sir, not for Missile--
        Senator Cochran. But that's not----
        General Obering [continuing]. Defense.
        Senator Cochran [continuing]. Your budget----
        General Obering. No, sir.
        Senator Cochran [continuing]. Request. That's Air Force----
        General Obering. It's not mine, sir.
        Senator Cochran. Okay.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, sir.

                             X-BAND RADAR SECURITY

        General, the radar--the X-band radar, Shemya--or, no, the
    radar at Shemya, and the sea-based X-band radar, are going to
    be part of this system. I'm--as you know, I'm fairly interested
    in that. They're going to be, obviously, targets now. Would you
    care to discuss the security situation of those targets, or
    would you like to do it in closed session?
        General Obering. Any details of that, Senator, I'd prefer
    to do that in closed session. But I will tell you that we do
    have what we consider to be adequate security and force
    protection measures that we've employed on those--on the
    platform, on the sea-based X-band radar. We have security
    arrangements that we've--that we have procured for the Cobra
    Dane radar, as well. I am working with General Dodgen and
    STRATCOM and the combatant commanders, because the force
    protection responsibilities, especially in an operational
    environment, fall under the combatant commanders'
    responsibility--area of responsibility. And we're working with
    them to make sure that we have what is considered to be
    adequate force protection for the future, as well.
        But I would prefer the details of that to be in a closed
    session, if you don't mind.
        Senator Stevens. Well, we'll respect that, of course. We'll
    look forward to having a closed session, discussing some of
    these activities later this year.
        General Dodgen, when is this X-band radar going to
    transition to operational status?
        General Dodgen. It will do that later this year. I
    believe--I don't know what the exact month--is it December?
    It's going to leave Hawaii and go through some more trials up
    in the Adak region. Primarily, the software build that we're
    going to put into the GMD fire control (GFC) system will allow
    this radar to be used by the interceptors, will be tested and
    validated in those particular times. So, it won't just be the
    platform that'll be tested. It will be the command and control
    system that's going into the GFC now that will be tested by the
    operators and when I say the ``operators,'' I mean the soldiers
    at Fort Greely, Alaska, will verify this system. And all
    that'll be done before it's actually placed into the system on
    alert later this year.

                                SEA BASED X-BAND

        General Obering. And, Senator, if I may, we have had the
    radar in the vicinity of Hawaii for the past several months. We
    have been doing some corrosion control work on the platform.
    And then, we motored it off the coast to begin the radar
    calibration test, and we actually--I got a report this morning
    that we've completed that activity. So, we'll be coming back
    in, and then we'll be making our way--after a thorough review
    of readiness, we'll be making our way up to Adak, Alaska, in
    the next month or so.
        Senator Stevens. Well, I want to chat with you about it.
    I've been invited to participate in something in August
    pertaining to that X-band radar, and I was surprised, because I
    didn't expect it to be in our waters until later this year.
        General Obering. No, sir. It will be up in Alaska, should
    be there this summer, and then we will----
        Senator Stevens. It will be there this summer?
        General Obering. Yes, sir. And then, we will use the
    remainder of the time to complete its integration from that--
    from the location near Adak into the system, do the full
    checkout using those satellite transponders, et cetera. And
    then we'll be available for operations this year, as General
    Dodgen said.
        Senator Stevens. You intend it to be in Adak sometime this
    summer?
        General Obering. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Do you know a time--any timeframe for
    that?
        General Obering. I will take that for the record and get
    back to you, but I believe it is in the latter part of July.
        [The information follows:]

        The SBX is currently scheduled to depart the Hawaii
    Operational Test Area upon completion of X-Band Radar
    Calibration testing, and will arrive at its loitering location
    50 nautical miles off Adak, AK in late summer.
        The MDA Mission Readiness Task Force, at Lieutenant General
    Obering's request, recently chartered an independent review
    team consisting of retired Navy and Coast Guard admirals,
    senior naval architects, and semi-submersible oil rig experts,
    to assess SBX operational viability with a focus on operations
    in the Bering Sea. The agency will implement some of the
    recommendations in the Hawaii region as well as perform low-
    level repairs and maintenance required from calibration testing
    prior to departing for Adak.
        XBR calibration is scheduled to be completed in August,
    2006.

        Senator Stevens. Well, that fits in with the request I have
    had, then. Thank you.
        I was surprised. I didn't think it was going to be there
    that early.
        Well, gentlemen, I want to tell you that I, personally, am
    very pleased with everything I've heard about this, and I'm
    very pleased with the activities of the National Missile
    Defense Support Group that's out there, with Ricky Ellison. And
    I congratulate you on the way your information is being
    disseminated throughout the country about the importance of the
    program and how it's proceeding. I really think it meets up
    with the basic expectations we've had.
        I will tell you that we'd like to talk to you a little bit
    later about some of the aspects of this program. I think that
    it would be best to do that in that closed session we're
    talking about, in terms of how this money is going to be
    allocated.
        Do you, Senators, have any further questions?
        Well, we do thank you very much. And, again, we
    congratulate you. I think the decision to deploy these missiles
    while they're still in the development phase, has proven to be
    a wise decision, and we'd look forward to your keeping us
    advised on the schedule of further developments in the system.
        I failed to ask you about the Kodiak connection. Do you
    have anything scheduled with regard to the Kodiak launching
    system during this year?
        General Obering. Yes, sir. In fact, the targets that I
    mentioned earlier that we will be flying in our next series of
    tests next week, those targets will be launched from Kodiak.
    And I have to tell you that we've been very, very pleased with
    the performance and cooperation there.
        Senator Stevens. That's proved to be a very good place for
    that activity, and we're delighted that you're there.
        And we do thank you for your testimony. And----
        Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. I just want to add something to what you
    said. I think General Obering and General Dogden both, their
    respective commands, Mr. Chairman, are showing real leadership
    and resourceful for the Nation. And this ought to be
    recognized.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Stevens. You're right, and I'm particularly
    pleased, as I said, with the transparency. I think everywhere I
    go, people have asked about it, and they've been stimulated by
    the appearances that you and so many members of your command
    have made throughout the country. So, it's very good to have
    that kind of transparency in a program like this.
        [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 Henry A. ``Trey'' Obering III
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
        Question. Over a year ago, the Graham panel recommended
    intensifying your flight and ground testing, while recently the
    Inspector General pointed out issues with your network communications
    security. How has your confidence in our deployed system, including the
    interceptors Fort Greely and Vandenberg, changed? Your plan calls for
    only one ground based missile defense intercept test in fiscal year
    2006; are you comfortable with that level and rate of testing?
        Answer. The Missile Defense Agency's confidence in our deployed
    BMDS is growing. If the deployed system were called upon in an
    emergency we believe that it would work based on the testing we have
    conducted to date. Recent tests conducted over the past year bolster
    our confidence as we have successfully flown the operationally
    configured interceptor. We hope to gain further confidence in our
    system's capability when we conduct an intercept flight test with an
    operationally configured GBI later this year.
        We are successfully executing our plan of continued laboratory and
    distributed asset testing at the component and system level, and are
    conducting a regimented flight test schedule with well-defined entrance
    and exit criteria in accordance with the recommendations of the
    Independent Review Team (IRT) and the Mission Readiness Task Force
    (MRTF). We have instituted a stringent pre-mission ground test program
    prior to our Ground Based Midcourse Interceptor flight test missions
    which allows us to fully exercise the ground components at Fort Greeley
    and Vandenberg prior to a flight test event. In addition, we have
    successfully demonstrated the ability to launch, fly and separate the
    Ground Based Midcourse Interceptor's Exo-atmospheric kill vehicle,
    thereby validating the modifications we made after previous flight
    tests. We have also recently conducted live tests of other key BMDS
    assets demonstrating the system's ability to detect and track live
    targets in flight using operational sensors, operational networks, and
    our operational battle management and fire control nodes.
        Our disciplined path to returning to a flight program required
    specific technical criteria to be met before the flight test could
    occur. This approach limited us to one intercept flight test in fiscal
    year 2006, but provided us with key insights to bolster confidence in
    each and every subsequent event. We plan to maintain this strategy as
    we strive to increase the flight test tempo in subsequent years,
    improve integration of Information Assurance (IA) Controls, and believe
    that this strategy helps balance the technical risks with additional
    confidence that comes from testing in more stressful intercept
    environments.
        Concerning the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG)
    report on the Ground Based Midcourse Defense Communications Network
    (GCN), MDA is confident that the GCN will continue to perform safely,
    securely, and efficiently when called upon to defend this nation, our
    friends and allies against missile threats. The IG recommendations are
    matters that need attending to, and are being appropriately addressed.
                          ground-based missile defense
        Question. I'm pleased that the airborne laser has made technical
    strides during the last year. Will this program have the funding to
    meet its key milestones in 2007?
        Answer. The program has sufficient funding to accomplish the
    projected milestones in 2007. ABL is a high-risk/high-payoff program
    based on cutting edge technology in developing and integrating advanced
    optics and lasers on a flying platform. The program has made
    significant progress by successfully demonstrating long-duration lasing
    at lethal power levels in ground tests and completing flight testing of
    the integrated beam control/fire control and battle management systems
    on board the ABL prototype aircraft. The program is following a very
    aggressive schedule to complete both ground and flight tests of the
    beacon and tracking illuminators (including demonstration of
    atmospheric compensation) before the end of CY 2006, and completion of
    low power system testing in CY 2007, while the high energy laser
    component is refurbished in preparation for installation on board the
    aircraft in CY 2007. All these efforts are leading up to a lethal
    shoot-down of a ballistic missile in the 2008 timeframe.
        Question. Fielding Aegis and Ground Based Midcourse Defense are
    priorities for this committee. Can you assure this committee that the
    Missile Defense Agency has adequate resources allocated to the testing,
    fielding and operational aspects of the current system before embarking
    on the development of new capabilities?
        Answer. I share your views on the importance of fielding the
    Ground-based Midcourse and Aegis BMD elements of the Ballistic Missile
    Defense System (BMDS).
        In fiscal year 2007 we plan to continue the incremental fielding
    and sustainment of Ground-based Midcourse Defense interceptors;
    additional SM-3 missiles and upgrades to Aegis BMD ships; and the
    supporting sensors, command, control, battle management and
    communication capabilities required to integrate these interceptors
    into the BMDS. We have been steadily increasing the operational realism
    of Aegis BMD flight tests leading to deployment of a certified tactical
    capability later this year. In Aegis BMD, the Navy's Operational Test
    and Evaluation force is conducting concurrent testing as part of Aegis
    BMD flight test missions. We will also be pursuing a comprehensive and
    integrated approach to increasing the operational realism of our GMD
    and BMDS flight tests as well as making our ground testing program more
    robust. At the same time, we are not wavering from our commitment to
    sustaining these systems once they are in the field.
        The resources included in our fiscal year 2007 President's Budget
    request, as well as throughout the FYDP, are adequate to support our
    fielding, sustaining and testing commitments. Currently, we are
    fielding missile defense assets about as fast as we can and I can
    assure you that our budget request represents an appropriate balance
    between providing near term missile defense capabilities and preparing
    for the emerging threats of the future through our evolutionary
    development programs.
        Question. The radar at Shemya and the sea based X-Band are key
    elements of the ground based missile defense system. As such, they are
    likely high value targets in the initial phases of an attack. Does the
    Missile Defense Agency plan to protect these assets from our
    adversaries? Can you provide us that plan in a classified session?
        Answer. The overall protection strategy for the Cobra Dane Radar on
    Shemya Island, Alaska and the Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) is based upon an
    assessment of the current threat, the application of security measures
    to deter identified threats and appropriately protect the radar and
    personnel, and the Combatant Commanders planned response to actual
    threats.
    Cobra Dane
        U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) Strategic Directive 538-2,
    ``Global Ballistic Missile Defense Systems (GBMDS) Physical Security
    Program'' directs protection standard at the SSL-A level. This
    specifies protection commensurate with assets for which loss, thefts,
    destruction or compromise would cause great harm to the strategic
    capability of the United States. Cobra Dane does not currently meet all
    SSL-A protection requirements. Remoteness of the asset, severe weather
    conditions, and cost vs. risk are considerations being evaluated
    towards a decision to properly updated existing security. MDA is
    working with USSTRATCOM and Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) to conduct a
    security assessment and develop a risk mitigation plan to identify
    security systems suitable for the Eareckson environment, including
    enhanced security for the Cobra Dane radar.
    SBX
        SBX is currently protected as a System Security Level-A asset in
    accordance with DEPSECDEP direction, as implemented by U.S. Strategic
    Command (USSTRATCOM) Strategic Directive 538-2. USSTRATCOM has endorsed
    MDA security and force protection measures as consistent with 538-2 for
    SSL-A.
        Geographic Combatant Commands (GCC) are responsible under the
    Unified Command Plan (UCP) for force protection oversight of SBX-1 when
    operating in their area of responsibility. While MDA is responsible for
    antiterrorism/force protection (AT/FP) of the vessel, the GCC is
    responsible for responding to attacks by adversaries during increased
    threats/wartime. Based on the Force Protection Condition (FPCON) and
    current intelligence, GCCs will direct assigned forces or request
    additional forces to protect the SBX operations, as required.
        Question. Your agency is in the initial development stages of the
    Kinetic Energy Inteceptor, which appears to offer improved performance
    during boost and ascent phase engagements. For commonality,
    supportability, and cost have we examined all avenues of improvements,
    or modifications, to the existing ground based interceptors to provide
    this capability?
        Answer. The Missile Defense Agency did examine the possibility of
    improving or modifying the existing Ground-Based Interceptor to enable
    boost and early ascent phase defenses prior to starting the Kinetic
    Energy Interceptors program in 2003. What we and multiple industry
    teams determined is that a mobile, fast-burning, high acceleration
    booster capability is required to meet boost/ascent phase mission
    requirements. The Kinetic Energy Interceptor booster has approximately
    three times the acceleration of a Ground Based Interceptor with a
    similar payload volume and weight capacity. The Kinetic Energy
    Interceptor is also half the weight of a Ground Based Interceptor; its
    physical size (length and diameter) is constrained to allow rapid
    transport on a C-17 aircraft and future integration on a sea-based
    platform. The only way to achieve this mobile weapon capability is to
    design, develop, integrate and test new booster motors. The development
    of this unique booster vehicle capability is the primary focus of the
    Kinetic Energy Interceptors program through the 2008 booster flight
    knowledge point.
        Question. What milestones and testing events need to occur prior to
    announcing an initial operating capability of the ground-based missile
    defense system?
        Answer. Today, the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) could
    provide a limited defense if called upon as the initial set of
    capabilities necessary to defeat an incoming ballistic missile have
    been fielded and demonstrated. These capabilities are currently in a
    ``shakedown period'' under which our crews are gaining valuable
    experience in their operations, and should some threat arise, we could
    transition from a test phase to an operational phase in a matter of
    hours. MDA is working with the warfighters to ensure they are ready to
    operate the system when directed as well developing the capability to
    operate and test the BMDS concurrently.
        A Secretary of Defense decision to put the system on a higher level
    of alert will be based on a number of factors. These factors include:
    the advice he receives from the Combatant Commanders, and other senior
    officials of the Department; our confidence in the operational
    procedures we have developed; demonstrated performance during both
    ground and flight tests; modeling and simulation; and the threat.
        Question. If the third stage rocket motor is removed from the
    ground-based interceptor, can it do boost phase intercept? What would
    its capabilities and characteristics, including size and mobility, be
    in comparison to the Kinetic Energy Interceptor?
        Answer. [Deleted].

              VALUE OF TEST RANGES TO MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY (MDA)

        Question. White Sands is perhaps the most unique installation in
    all of DOD and, when combined with Fort Bliss (most of which is located
    in New Mexico) and Holloman Air Force Base, it gives the Department a
    highly valuable venue for combining operations and testing.
        Can you describe the value MDA places on its access to an
    installation like White Sands with its enormous geographic size and
    unrestricted airspace?
        Answer. MDA values access an installation like White Sands Missile
    Range (WSMR) for testing of Ballistic Missile Defense (BMDS) elements
    due to its geographic size and airspace. However, WSMR is not well
    suited for MDA test engagements across multiple time-zones which are
    necessary to increase confidence in the whole BMDS. We continue to
    integrate theater and regional missile engagement capabilities into the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System with a strategic engagement capability
    demonstrated for Block 04. With its size and airspace, WSMR will
    contribute to the success of the BMDS in future testing involving
    PATRIOT integrated with Command Control Battle Management and
    Communications (C2BMC) and the Theater High Altitude Area Defense
    system (THAAD). PATRIOT testing is required to assist in maintaining
    the Limited Defensive Capability of the BMDS as well as the development
    of future Blocks of the BMDS.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

              VALUE OF TEST RANGES TO MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY (MDA)

        Question. Does this access provide the type of realistic testing
    environment needed to collect accurate data for your systems?
        Answer. Yes, at the developmental testing level, but not as much
    for operational testing:
        Airborne Laser (ABL).--WSMR is well suited for firing the laser in
    flight at diagnostic missiles during beam characterization, and for
    some test sorties where active laser operation is not required.
        THAAD.--For ground testing, THAAD will conduct a total of 26
    activities comprised of tests, demonstrations and New Equipment
    Training/Collective Training. These activities will exercise the
    Launcher, Radar, and Fire Control and Communication components of the
    THAAD element, at WSMR and other ranges, from 2007 through 2011.
        PATRIOT Advanced Capability (PAC)-3.--In fiscal year 2007 and
    fiscal year 2008 there will be a total of two BMDS tests that use the
    Army's PATRIOT tests at WSMR. The first test, set for the second
    quarter fiscal year 2007, will bring C2BMC and THAAD Hardware-In-the-
    Loop (HWIL) to exercise the latest PATRIOT and C2BMC software. MDA will
    collect data on communications between THAAD and PATRIOT and will test
    PATRIOT's ability to receive C2BMC engagement-coordination direction.
    For the second test, set for the first quarter fiscal year 2008, MDA
    will bring C2BMC and THAAD HWIL to the PAC-2 Guidance Enhancement
    Missile (GEM) P6X-2 test to accomplish the same objectives. It should
    be noted that the Army will be conducting PATRIOT tests at WSMR in
    addition to MDA specific tests.
        Question. How will White Sands contribute to the success of the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System in the future?
        Answer. In Block 06 and beyond, the MDA has planned engagement
    sequences that include THAAD engagement on its X-band radars and on
    system-level tracks. The WSMR flight campaigns will contribute to
    proving key functionality and interfaces as the BMDS extends to
    integrated, layered, worldwide-defensive capabilities. Accordingly, the
    MDA testing program includes THAAD flight tests and Patriot flight
    tests to demonstrate early interoperability, then integration with the
    BMDS. The C2BMC element will participate in these flight tests to
    demonstrate the situational awareness and planning functions that are
    needed to conduct regional missile defense operations.
        Question. A range-wide environmental impact statement has not been
    completed for WSMR in more than ten years. Would the Missile Defense
    Agency benefit from such an EIS?
        Answer. A decision to conduct a range wide EIS at the Army's White
    Sands Missile Range would be made by the Army and White Sands Missile
    Range, and any value to the Missile Defense Agency would be indirect.
    The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) coordinates test planning at White
    Sands Missile Range with the Army, and as new missile tests are
    identified to meet our testing goals, and as the proponent of those
    tests, the Missile Defense Agency would initiate the necessary level of
    compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act for the specific
    action. Current planned Missile Defense Agency testing at White Sands
    Missile Range is compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act.
        Question. What does the Missile Defense Agency need from White
    Sands Missile Range and New Mexico?
        Answer. THAAD returned to flight testing in 2005, and the second
    flight test of five at WSMR occurred on May 11, 2006. The THAAD program
    currently plans to conduct three additional flight tests at WSMR over
    the rest of this year and into fiscal year 2007 before moving future
    testing to the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) at Barking Sands,
    HI, where we can conduct tests of more challenging engagement
    scenarios.
        WSMR provides support for many other MDA flight tests via our
    Pacific Range Support Teams (PRST) which are teams composed of staff
    from multiple DOD ranges to support broad ocean area tests, and to
    specific MDA dedicated mobile test assets. We need the WSMR team to
    continue their outstanding support of our MDA PRST, providing critical
    mobile equipment and expertise to remote locations around the Pacific.
    While the WSMR geography seems substantial for tactical systems, MDA
    systems must demonstrate their capabilities on both a broader theater
    and global scale. This large-scale testing will require us to use large
    areas within the Pacific oceans.
        MDA and DOD continually seek more commonality of testing processes
    and tools across the Major Ranges and Test Facility Base, to enable
    more efficient and flexible testing in the future. WSMR's continued
    support of these activities is crucial.
        The C2BMC element participates in THAAD and PATRIOT testing from
    WSMR to achieve early demonstrations of element interconnectivity and
    data message transfer during live fire events. This interconnectivity
    testing is made easy by WSMR's SIPRNET on-range connectivity and ease
    of set-up and troubleshooting.
        MDA's programs take advantage of a substantial amount of
    infrastructure and technical expertise from across New Mexico. Some of
    the other areas include: Holloman High Speed Test Track and WSMR for
    lethality and survivability testing; Kirtland Air Force Research Labs
    and the ABL program office support to our Directed Energy activities;
    and Sandia National Labs for support to our FT targets, threat
    analyses, survivability, among others.
                                     ______

           Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Larry J. Dodgen
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                        BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM

        Question. Given that the system spans multiple departments,
    commands and areas of responsibility, can you describe the current
    operational control of the system? Is the system currently on alert, if
    not when do you project that it will be?
        Answer. The operational control of current Ballistic Missile
    Defense System (BMDS) begins with the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) who
    retains direct control of the current capabilities. These capabilities
    are in a Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) status
    managed by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). However, in an emergency,
    operational capabilities are available today and upon direction from
    the SECDEF, control transitions to an operational status. The
    operational control is executed by a combination of Geographic
    Combatant Commanders (GCCs), e.g. Commander STRATCOM, Commander
    NORTHCOM, and Commander PACOM. Control processes have been vetted by
    the GCCs in readiness exercises that verified necessary warfighter
    tactics, techniques and procedures to operate the system. MDA and GCCs
    continue to add capability to BMDS that remain in an RDT&E status until
    the SECDEF decides to place all or parts of the BMDS into a 24/7/365
    mode of operation.
        Question. I understand the 2007 budget cut the advanced procurement
    for the second aircraft. The airborne laser program calls for a fleet
    of modified 747 aircraft. How comfortable are you with the overall
    concept of operations provided the laser's range, aircraft on station
    time and deployment options?
        Answer. The Ballistic Missile Defense Concept of Operations has
    been vetted during developer (Missile Defense Agency) and warfighter
    (Geographic Combatant Commanders) exercises. In many of these
    exercises, use of current simulation resources to depict Airborne Laser
    (ABL) capabilities as part of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense
    System (BMDS) is exercised. Operator's tactics, techniques and
    procedures are refined as we learn more about how each element and
    component of the BMDS interacts in a dynamic, operational context over
    a range of potential adversarial operations. Once ABL technology and
    potential deployment advances, we will be able to better assess the
    state of ABL's concept of operations within the overall BMDS.
        Question. Operationally, to meet the current ballistic missile
    threat, are you comfortable with the number of interceptors,
    surveillance assets, and capabilities at your disposal? When will the
    Sea Based X-Band Radar transition to operational status, and who will
    operate it?
        Answer. As you are aware, the system continues to evolve within the
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) arena but, if
    necessary, it can provide an operational capability now. While we now
    have an operational capability, continuous assessments indicate that we
    need both present as well as programmed assets to defeat the evolving
    ballistic missile threat. Provided that planned assets are fielded, I
    am comfortable that the Nation will possess an effective global missile
    defense system. The Sea Based X-band radar (SBX) continues to undergo a
    series of sea trials and sensor calibration activities prior to moving
    to its area of operations later this year. Currently, the SBX is
    operated by a combination of Missile Defense Agency (MDA) provided
    contractors and security personnel. Negotiations are continuing with
    the Services to ensure long-term operations of the SBX.
        Question. Given uncertainty in the international community to
    support our missile defense efforts, what are the risks to the forward
    deployment concept?
        Answer. Capabilities of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS)
    remain in a Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) status
    under direct control of the Secretary of Defense. Limited, rudimentary
    capabilities are spread over a number of geographic areas that include
    the domains of friends and allies who are forthcoming in support of our
    forward deployment needs. To date, it appears there is a legitimate
    interest by additional friendly and allied entities to provide support
    necessary for stationing and operation of additional deployable
    elements and components and therefore, greatly mitigate any risks there
    may be. In fact, as countries like North Korea and Iran continue to
    develop and market ballistic missiles, there is a corresponding
    increase in international support for missile defense. Many elements
    and components are rapidly deployable from friendly and allied
    operating areas serving as forward basing for support and sustainment
    of BMD assets in adjacent operating areas. Sea and airborne BMDS
    elements and components are rapidly relocated to compensate for any
    loss of any ground stationing issues that may arise in any particular
    scenario. In addition, many friends and allies continue to make their
    own BMDS asset contributions fully integrating regional BMD
    architecture.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Stevens. We will stand in recess until Wednesday,
    May 17, when we will hear testimony from the Secretary of
    Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
        Thank you very much, gentlemen.
        [Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., Wednesday, May 10, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    May 17.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:14 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Stevens, Specter, Domenici, Bond,
    McConnell, Shelby, Burns, Inouye, Byrd, Leahy, Dorgan, Durbin,
    and Feinstein.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF
                DEFENSE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            TINA JONAS, COMPTROLLER
            GENERAL H. STEVEN BLUM, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We had a vote that
    held us up. We appreciate your courtesy of being with us this
    morning.
        We are going to hear from the Secretary of Defense, Donald
    Rumsfeld, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
    General Peter Pace. They are joined by Secretary of Defense
    Comptroller, Tina Jonas. We're pleased to have the Department-
    level witnesses here before us, and we look forward to your
    testimony.
        Today we want to discuss the fiscal year 2007 budget
    request for your Department. The budget request is $423.2
    billion in discretionary budget authority for the whole
    Department for the fiscal year 2007. As we review the
    Department's request, we do so ever mindful of those patriotic
    warriors who are fighting for our freedoms every day.
        Mr. Secretary, General Pace, we're going to make your full
    statements a part of our subcommittee records. Let me turn
    first to the co-chairman of our subcommittee, and then we'll
    see if anyone else wishes to make opening remarks.
        Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. Because of the time constraint, sir, I put
    my statement in the record.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I have also received
    a statement from the chairman of the full committee, Senator
    Cochran which I will insert into the record.
        [The statements follow:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye

        Good morning Mr. Secretary. I want to join our chairman in
    welcoming you and General Pace as the subcommittee continues
    its Defense Department hearings on the fiscal year 2007 budget
    request.
        During our hearings this year we received testimony from
    the military departments, the Guard and Reserves, the Missile
    Defense Agency, and the Surgeons General.
        Next week we will conclude our hearings as we take
    testimony from members of the general public.
        As we have listened to the testimony of officials in your
    Department, it is clear that they support your budget request.
        DOD budgets are at record high levels, so it stands to
    reason that funding levels in the request should be sufficient
    to meet all the needs of the Department.
        However, we find a number of areas where surprising
    shortfalls remain.
        In health care, your budget assumes savings in excess of
    $800 million for assumed legislative changes to increase
    beneficiary co-payments and efficiencies. Both House and Senate
    authorizing committees have rejected your proposals, so we now
    have a shortfall in this area.
        We learned when the Navy testified that it had assumed
    significant ``risk'' in its readiness accounts. Its ship
    operating budget is woefully underfunded.
        We are aware that the Air Force has used financial gimmicks
    to support a sustained production of the F-22, while the
    planned termination of the C-17 fails to take into
    consideration the need for more aircraft due to its overuse in
    Iraq.
        The Army has insufficient funds to keep its M-1 program on
    track and is assuming a great deal of risk in its base
    operations funding.
        So even in these times of record budgets we see that
    problems still exist. Add to that record high fuel prices and
    we know that our fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill
    will require some major readjustment from the budget that you
    submitted.
        Gentlemen, I am sure you know how much we appreciate your
    services. Managing this Department, especially in these
    challenging times requires duty above and beyond the call.
        We thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, thanks to you for inviting our witnesses
    today, and I look forward to their testimony.
                                    ------

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran

        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to welcome Secretary of Defense
    Rumsfeld and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General
    Pace here today.
        I join you in praising the efforts demonstrated by our
    military forces serving around the world. The state of
    Mississippi has over 500 of its servicemembers deployed in
    Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, and is proud to be supporting
    the Global War on Terrorism. Last month, I talked with troops
    in Anbar province. They were motivated, their morale was great
    and they seemed focused on their mission.
        As you know we are in the process of working through the
    differences between the House and Senate Emergency Supplemental
    Appropriations bills which contain funding for the operations
    in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Global War on Terrorism. I am
    working hard to ensure differences are worked out and funding
    is provided as soon as possible, so our troops have the
    resources necessary to accomplish their mission.
        It would be helpful for us to know how soon the
    Supplemental funds will be needed for the Global War on
    Terrorism and what impact there would be from any delay in
    receipt of this funding.
        I thank you for your leadership of our military as they
    defend our national security interests. I am sure your insights
    about the fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department of
    Defense will be helpful to us in our appropriations process.
    Thank you for your assistance to the committee.

        Senator Stevens. Senator Bond.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And, as I mentioned to the Secretary and the chairman, we
    are extremely proud of the job that our military is doing in
    Iraq and Afghanistan. They don't seem to get credit for doing a
    great job, but we want our men and women in uniform, and the
    civilians who are working with them, to know that we appreciate
    the fact that they've been assigned a tough mission, they're
    doing it, and we appreciate it.
        Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Burns.
        Senator Burns. I would just ask unanimous consent that my
    full statement be made part of the record.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns

        Mr. Chairman, Secretary Rumsfeld, General Pace welcome.
        First of all, I would like to thank you for your
    exceptional service to our nation. I think it is important to
    remember that the strain that this nation took on September
    11th was one that you felt personally, we speak of heroes in
    our Armed Forces, I would submit that there are a number of
    great American heroes before us today.
        Our country has responded to the challenges faced by
    September 11th and we have sent a message to those who attack
    innocent civilians that we will not be victimized by terror. We
    will stand.
        Our young men and women serving overseas are a testament to
    that stand. There has been a great deal of talk about the path
    to war, and the justification. Much of the dissent over the
    decision to go to war in Iraq has been shown to be false by the
    declassification of thousands of pages of documents which
    detail Saddam Hussein's efforts to mislead the international
    community, and hide his efforts to develop WMD. It is a shame
    that this evidence goes seemingly unnoticed in the media.
        But, beyond that debate; I believe that it is important to
    remember that Americans, Iraqis, and our Allies are facing
    terrorists in Iraq today. Terrorists who believe that Iraq is
    the keystone to what they view as the beginning of a global
    jihad. If we lose in Iraq it will embolden our enemies. Enemies
    that seek nothing less than global war and conquest of everyone
    opposed to their radical agenda. I believe that we need to
    remember that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and if we don't
    defeat them there, we will be fighting them here.
        Victory in Iraq will be a victory of the Iraqi people. The
    Iraqis will overcome oppression and terrorism and defeat those
    who would seek to divide their nation. We need to support that
    emerging democracy, and we need to support the democratic voice
    of the Iraqi people who have voted their desire to build one
    Iraq.
        Our forces have been engaged around the world in the fight
    for democracy. I would like to take a moment to discuss our
    efforts to ensure that our young men and women and their
    families deployed around the world have a chance to participate
    in our democracy.
        As you know, my colleagues and I are concerned about
    military voting. 17 Senators from both parties including a
    number of Senators who sit on this committee sent a letter to
    your office in March expressing our support for fixing the
    military voting process. As you know, we have a number of
    concerns about the effectiveness of the military process.
        A major part of the problem is getting ballots to our
    service men and women in remote locations. I look forward to
    working with you to implement the Interim Voting Assistance
    System (IVAS) in order to be able to solve a portion of this
    problem by emailing blank ballots to our service members.
        In a recent report the GAO has cited concerns about the
    Federal Voting Assistance Programs (FVAP's) efforts to quantify
    military voter turnout. Low survey response rates, a lack of
    analysis of respondents, and a failure to conduct a sampling
    error analysis are all cited in the report. What this means is
    that the FVAP office cannot really tell us how many of our
    military service men and women voted, or what percentage of
    their votes were counted.
        On the other hand the Election Assistance Commission
    estimates that 18 percent of military votes were not counted in
    2004, another survey indicates the percentage may exceed 25
    percent. Whether one in four military voters is disenfranchised
    or one in five: either way, this is unacceptable.
        In addition the Election Assistance Commission is still
    waiting on the FVAP to provide a report of electronic voting
    efforts in the 2004 election. Without the results of this
    report it is difficult to determine how to move forward with
    the development of electronic voting initiatives.
        I am certain that you share my concern that our young men
    and women serving overseas have the right to vote. I look
    forward to speaking with you on the subject in the near future.

        Senator Burns. And about the only thing I want to highlight
    this morning is--and I'll ask no questions on it, but I want
    the Secretary and the chairman to be aware that we're trying to
    install a new Federal Voting Assistance Program in the military
    and trying to get most of the ballots to our fighting men that
    are scattered around the world, and to get those ballots back,
    and to be counted. We seem to think that this is a very
    important part of their participation in this great country.
        And we'd like to also acknowledge the great job that
    they're doing over there--and everywhere, in fact. And it's, I
    think, because we have great leadership here. And I thank you
    for coming this morning.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, are there other witnesses
    you'd like to have identified for the record? I know you've got
    an array with you, but we're pleased to hear your comments.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like
    to identify General Steve Blum, the Chief of the National Guard
    Bureau, who is also here with us.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        General, nice to have you here.
        Pleased to have your statement, sir.

                         SECRETARY'S OPENING STATEMENT

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
    subcommittee. We appreciate this opportunity to meet with you
    on the President's budget request for 2007 for the Department
    of Defense.

                                 TRANSFORMATION

        Yesterday, I met with a quite different gathering, the
    graduating class of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI). Many
    of them will be putting on the Nation's uniform and see service
    overseas in the months ahead. They'll join nearly 200,000 other
    talented young people who are slated to join the U.S. military
    this year, folks who could be something different, something
    easier, not to mention something safer, and for better pay, but
    who have chosen, instead, to raise their hands and step forward
    to defend our country.
        The U.S. military that they are entering today is
    profoundly different from the force that existed when they
    applied to college 5 years ago. Our armed forces are in the
    process of transforming, and I want to highlight just a few of
    the significant shifts that have taken place and that are
    reflected in this budget.
        First, the changes to our global posture. When I returned
    to this post in 2001, the U.S. military, though smaller, was
    arranged and operated much the same as it was when I was
    Secretary of Defense some 30 years before. In addition, U.S.
    forces were located around the globe in roughly the same places
    they were some 50 years ago, when Soviet armored divisions were
    poised to cross the Fulda Gap and South Korea was then an
    impoverished nation devastated by the Korean war.
        In a major overhaul of our country's global posture,
    thousands of U.S. troops and their families are returning to
    home bases in the United States, the first of some 170,000
    servicemembers and dependents worldwide who will be affected
    over the next decade.
        Just 3 or 4 years ago, the Army consisted of 48 deployable
    combat brigades organized within divisions, their basic
    building block since World War I. In the past, sending one
    brigade overseas required stripping out key headquarters and
    support elements from its parent division, essentially ending,
    or at least reducing, that division's ability to respond to any
    other contingencies.
        Today, the service is well along in reorganizing into a
    more expeditionary force of 70 modular brigade combat teams
    across the Army's Active and Reserve components. These more
    agile, lethal, and more autonomous units can deploy and fight
    quickly with enough of their own firepower, armor, logistics,
    and administrative assets to protect and sustain themselves
    over time. Furthermore, as a result of reorganizing and
    rebalancing skills and positions across the force, tens of
    thousands of soldiers have been shifted from the institutional
    army, the ``tail,'' which trains, supports, and administers the
    force, to the operational Army, that portion of the service
    that's organized, trained, and equipped to deploy and fight.
        The effect of these initiatives by the Army is that a
    relatively modest increase in the overall size of the Army is
    leading to a significant increase in the deployable ``boots on
    the ground,'' or ``teeth,'' the on-call combat power for our
    Nation's defense.

                                 NATIONAL GUARD

        Five years ago, the Army Reserve and National Guard were
    configured as a strategic reserve to be called upon maybe once
    in a generation in the event of a major conflict on the scale
    of World War II. They were chronically undermanned,
    underequipped, and underfunded. For example, of the 34 Army
    National Guard combat brigades on paper, only 15 were even
    called ``enhanced brigades'' and supposedly ready for
    deployment. But even those brigades, year after year, were
    partly hollow and underequipped, and had to be augmented with
    people and equipment from other units before they could be
    deployed. Looking forward, instead of having only 15 so-called
    enhanced brigade--combat brigades, the Army Guard, aided by
    some $21 billion in new funding that will replenish equipment
    and accelerate modernization, we'll have 28 brigade combat
    teams that will be fully manned and fully equipped, like their
    active duty counterparts.
        We will see their flexibility with the President's proposal
    to temporarily increase the supporting role the Guard is
    already playing to secure our Nation's borders. The Department
    of Homeland Security is in the lead role, but Guard units may
    provide assistance, such as mobile communications,
    transportation, logistics training, and construction.
        Military forces will not be involved in apprehension or
    detention of illegal immigrants. The up to 6,000 guardsmen and
    guardswomen proposed for this effort represent less than 2
    percent of the total National Guard force of some 400,000 plus.
    And, for the most part, they will be deployed during their 2 or
    3 week ``active duty for training'' period. As such, this will
    not only not adversely affect America's ability to conduct the
    war on terror or respond to other domestic emergencies, it will
    actually provide useful, real-life training for the members of
    the National Guard.

                           OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

        Further, in 2001, when I came back to the Department, the
    military had 132 unmanned aerial vehicles of all types and
    sizes. Today, it has more than 3,000. In 2001, prior to
    September 11, the Army had less than 500 up-armored Humvees.
    Today, it has more than 12,000.
        Next, some 20,000 positions that previously had been
    performed by uniformed military personnel are today being
    performed by civilians, thereby freeing up 20,000 U.S.
    servicemen and servicewomen for truly military tasks and
    assignments, and thousands of additional positions are
    currently slated to be converted from military billets to
    civilian billets over the next 5 years.

                                      NAVY

        As for the Navy, a few years ago three out of four ships in
    the U.S. Navy were not deployable at any given time because of
    long maintenance and training cycles, which was the product,
    really, of a peacetime culture and a peacetime mindset. By
    applying advanced research and development, innovative
    maintenance and training, and a variety of cost-savings
    initiatives, the Navy leadership has changed the way our fleet
    operates and deploys. Today, the percentage of the fleet
    routinely at sea has increased by more than 50 percent. The
    Navy then was able to deploy only three carrier strike groups,
    and surge to two within 30 days; today, it can have six and
    with the ability to surge one additional carrier strike group
    within 90 days.
        A word about special operations forces, very briefly. In
    the past, those forces were largely limited to augmenting
    conventional operations and training foreign militaries. Since
    2002, the special operations command (SOCOM) has grown by 6,000
    troops, its budget has nearly doubled. They've come a long way
    from the time when, as General Pete Schoomaker--he used to lead
    that unit--put it, ``The special operations forces were more
    like a sports car that was never driven for fear of denting the
    fender.''
        We've overhauled both the way we plan for contingencies and
    the way we deploy forces. The Department's deployment process
    was governed previously by a somewhat inflexible cold war
    process that was really designed for total peace or total war--
    lever on, lever off, with very little in between. The
    Department has worked aggressively to overhaul the planning
    process so that contingency plans can be better kept up to date
    to reflect more current assessments.

                             MEETING NEW CHALLENGES

        The military has undertaken the historical changes I've
    mentioned while fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and
    across the globe in the struggle against violent extremism. All
    of the many changes to personnel and the way the military plans
    and fights, to structure and organization, and to training and
    doctrine, have involved having the military challenge old
    assumptions and old habits. At various points along the way,
    the proposed changes have understandably met some resistance--
    within the Department, in the Congress, in the industrial
    complex, and certainly in the press. Change is difficult in any
    large organization, particularly one like the U.S. military
    that's been so successful over the decades in doing what it
    does best, which has been to fight large armies, navies, and
    air forces in battles along the line of the first gulf war.
        But, increasingly, the challenge today is more than simply
    large armies. It is irregular and asymmetric threats. But if
    there was any doubt about the necessity and the urgency of
    these changes when President Bush first took office in January
    2001, it should have been dispelled 9 months later, when it
    took only 19 men, armed with box cutters and tourist visas, to
    kill nearly 3,000 of our fellow citizens. And today that enemy,
    though under constant pressure and on the defensive, is still
    conspiring to bring murder and suicide to our cities. This long
    war, this struggle against violent extremists is a central
    security issue of our time. The campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan,
    and other theaters in the war on terror have added new impetus
    and urgency to the efforts to transform the Department.
        The unprecedented and complex task before us, in what could
    be a decades-long campaign against extremism, has prompted a
    series of shifts in the military's approach to its traditional
    missions, its tactics, its techniques, and its procedures. One
    of the most important shifts underway is in the role and
    importance of intelligence.
        The U.S. military has long excelled in engaging targets
    once they've been identified. We have begun a major effort to
    ascertain where the enemy is going next, rather than where the
    enemy was, and to be much better able to find and fix, as well
    as what the military has always done very well--namely, finish.
    This means significantly upgrading and refocusing U.S.
    intelligence capabilities, both human and technological, and
    more effectively linking intelligence to operations in realtime
    in the field. This is an enormous challenge for the dedicated
    and talented men and women in the U.S. intelligence community,
    and clearly it will take some time to achieve our goals.
        A word on the Department's role in the overall intelligence
    community since September 11. Thoughtful people across the
    Government have been trying to find the right structures, the
    right arrangements, so that we can provide the very best
    intelligence to protect the American people. Everything we're
    doing to upgrade and adjust the intelligence capabilities
    within the Department has been coordinated with the other
    agencies of the Government, the Director of National
    Intelligence (DNI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the
    State Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
    and down the line. It is a constructive process, and, indeed, a
    continuous process, despite some of the breathless and
    fictitious speculation of bureaucratic intrigue that we see in
    the daily press.

                                PROGRESS IN IRAQ

        A word on Iraq. Iraq will soon be governed, for the first
    time, by a permanent government of national unity elected under
    a new Iraqi constitution that they wrote and they voted on.
    It's entered a hopeful new phase in what has been a long and
    difficult journey, from being ruled by one of the most brutal
    tyrannies in the 20th century to having a representative
    government and a free political system.
        Secretary Rice and I met with Prime Minister-designate
    Malaki and other Iraq elected leaders last month. They seemed
    to be very serious people who recognize that they have a window
    of opportunity to make headway on the serious challenges that
    their nation faces.
        These developments make it all the more important that the
    Congress approve the President's full supplemental request for
    operations in the global war on terror (GWOT). I know this
    hearing is on the 2007 budget, not the supplemental, but I have
    to say that delay in passing the supplemental puts the military
    services' critical accounts--in particular, operations,
    maintenance, and training accounts--at risk, as the services
    are already being forced to try to reprogram funds from other
    parts of their budgets under restrictions as to the amounts
    they can reprogram. The Army and Marine Corps are already being
    forced to defer contract obligations and supply requisitions
    due to impending budget shortfalls.
        In addition, cuts and delays in providing funds for the
    Iraqi security forces would undermine what has been truly
    significant progress in turning over greater responsibility and
    territory to Iraq's army and police forces. Please keep in mind
    that these kinds of cuts most certainly will increase the
    burden on the taxpayer over the long term.
        It costs some 10 times as much to recruit and train and
    deploy an American serviceman as it does an Iraqi soldier, and
    it costs more than twice as much to sustain a U.S. soldier in
    the theater than it does an Iraqi soldier. Any slowdown in
    funding for training and equipping the Iraqi security forces
    has the added harmful effect of postponing the day when our men
    and women in uniform can continue to pass off more
    responsibilities to the Iraqis and come home.
        Mr. Chairman, I started my remarks by mentioning a group of
    young people who are graduates, yesterday, donning their
    Nation's uniform for the first time. I'll end by referring to
    another group of young people that I encountered very recently,
    who are already serving the country and sacrificing.
        Two weeks ago, I went to the United Service Organizations
    (USO) station in Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport to visit with a
    large group of young Army soldiers, Active and Reserve and
    National Guard. They had been in Iraq for 6 months. They had
    been home for their 2 weeks. I had a chance to--and I hope
    others will do this--I had a chance to shake hands with them
    and visit and thank them personally for their service to the
    country. And it was interesting to me that when we left, and
    watched them, they went down the escalator into the terminal,
    people there, waiting for other airplanes, spontaneously
    clapped and stood up as these folks put their duffel bags on
    their shoulders and moved to charter flights, as I recall, to
    take them back over, and then into Iraq. It's a reflection, I
    think, not only of the high regard that our troops are held,
    but also of the fundamental decency and strength of the people
    of the country they serve. It reflects the appreciation and the
    support for their service that has been manifested by this
    subcommittee and by the Congress and the people you represent.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So, I thank you for your support in this complex and
    difficult struggle. The troops have done everything that's been
    asked of them, and they have done so with courage. And we owe
    it to them, and to the country that they have sworn to protect,
    to see that we provide the resources and the capabilities that
    will not only win today's wars, but also best assure peace in
    the decades ahead.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Donald H. Rumsfeld

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee.
        With me today is General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs of Staff. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you in
    support of the President's budget request for the Department of
    Defense.
        Yesterday, I met with quite a different gathering--the graduating
    class of the Virginia Military Institute. Many of those young men and
    women are putting on our nation's uniform, and will see service
    overseas in the months and years ahead. They will join nearly 200,000
    other talented young people who are slated to join the U.S. military
    this year--young men and women who could be doing something different,
    something easier, not to mention safer, and for better pay--but who
    have chosen instead to raise their hands and step forward to defend
    their country.
        The U.S. military that many of those graduates are entering today
    is profoundly different than the force that existed when they applied
    to college five years ago. And while our Armed Forces are in the
    process of transforming, it might be useful to highlight some of the
    most substantive and significant shifts that have taken place.

                                 GLOBAL POSTURE

        First, consider changes to our global posture.
        When I returned to this post in 2001, the U.S. military, though
    smaller, was arranged and operated much the same as it was when I was
    Secretary of Defense some 30 years before. In addition, U.S. forces
    were located around the globe in roughly the same places they were some
    50 years ago--when Soviet armored divisions were poised to cross the
    Fulda Gap and South Korea was an impoverished nation devastated by war.
        In a major overhaul of our country's global posture, thousands of
    U.S. troops and their families are returning to home bases in the
    United States--the first of 170,000 service members and dependents who
    will be affected over the next decade. Heavy Army units that had
    previously been garrisoned in fixed positions to defend against
    particular adversaries--some of whom no longer exist--are being
    relocated and reconfigured to be able to move rapidly wherever needed.
        We have also undertaken a major revision of the military's force
    posture here at home, with the largest round of domestic base closings
    and adjustments in our history--reforms that will save American
    taxpayers billions of dollars in future decades.

                                   U.S. ARMY

        Consider the dramatic changes to the U.S. Army.
        Just three years ago, the Army consisted of 48 deployable combat
    brigades organized within divisions--their basic ``building block''
    since World War I. In the past, sending one brigade overseas would
    require stripping out key headquarters and support elements from the
    rest of its parent division, essentially ending or reducing that
    division's ability to respond to other contingencies.
        Under the leadership of Secretary Fran Harvey and General Pete
    Schoomaker, the service is well along in reorganizing into a more
    expeditionary force of 70 ``modular'' Brigade Combat Teams across the
    Army's Active Component and National Guard. These more agile, lethal,
    and more autonomous units can deploy and fight quickly--but with enough
    of their own firepower, armor, logistics, and administrative assets to
    protect and sustain themselves over time.
        Furthermore, as a result of reorganizing and rebalancing skills and
    positions across the force, tens of thousands of soldiers have been
    shifted from the ``Institutional Army''--the ``tail,'' which trains,
    supports, and administers the force--to the ``Operational Army'' that
    portion of the service organized, trained, and equipped to deploy and
    fight.
        The effect of these significant initiatives--combined with
    investments in new weapons and technologies like the Future Combat
    Systems--is that a relatively modest increase in the overall size of
    the Army is leading to a truly significant increase in the deployable
    ``boots on the ground,'' or ``the teeth''--the combat power on call for
    our nation's defense.
        Consider that five years ago, the Army Reserve and National Guard
    were configured as a strategic reserve, to be called on once in a
    generation, in the event of a major conflict on the scale of World War
    II. They were chronically undermanned, under equipped, and under
    funded. For example, of the 34 Army National Guard combat brigades on
    paper, only 15 were called ``enhanced,'' and supposedly ready for
    deployment. But even those brigades, year after year, were partially
    hollow and under equipped, and had to be augmented with people and
    equipment from other units before being ready to deploy.
        Looking forward, instead of having only 15 so-called ``enhanced''
    combat brigades, the Army Guard--aided by $21 billion in new funding
    that will replenish equipment and accelerate modernization--will have
    28 Brigade Combat Teams that will be fully manned and fully equipped,
    like their Active Duty counterparts.
        Today, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve is becoming an
    ``operational reserve,'' capable of taking on a range of missions at
    home and abroad. We have seen this in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in the
    Guard's impressive response to Hurricane Katrina.

                          NATIONAL GUARD ON THE BORDER

        We will see it again with the President's initiative to increase
    the supporting role the Guard is already playing to secure our nation's
    borders. The Department of Homeland security is in the lead role, but
    Guard units may provide assistance such as mobile communications,
    transportation and logistics training, and construction. Military
    forces will not be involved in the apprehension or detention of illegal
    immigrants. The up to 6,000 Guardsmen and women proposed for this
    effort represent less than two percent of the total National Guard
    force of some 400,000, and for the most part they will be deployed
    during their active duty for training. As such this will not adversely
    effect America's ability to conduct the War on Terror or respond to
    other domestic emergencies.

                                WEAPONS SYSTEMS

        Weapons systems such as the Crusader artillery system and the
    Comanche helicopter, conceived during and designed for the Cold War,
    have either been cancelled or reduced. In other cases, we have made new
    and innovative use of older platforms, such as the SSGN--a 20-year old
    Trident nuclear ballistic missile submarine that has been converted to
    carry Navy SEALs and capable of launching conventional cruise missiles.
        Further:
      --In 2001 when I came back to the Department, the military had 132
            unmanned aerial vehicles of all types and sizes. Today it has
            more than 3,000; and
      --In 2001, prior to 9/11, the Army had less than 500 up-armored
            Humvees. Today, it has more than 12,000.

                               MANAGING THE FORCE

        Some 20,000 positions that previously had been performed by
    uniformed military personnel are today being performed by civilians,
    thereby freeing up 20,000 U.S. servicemen and women for truly military
    tasks and assignments. And, thousands of additional positions are
    slated to be converted from military billets to civilian billets over
    the next five fiscal years.
        About 10,000 civilian employees are for the first time being
    managed under the new National Security Personnel System that allows
    for greater flexibility in hiring, promotion, and assignment.

                           BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

        When President Bush took office, the United States had no defense
    against long-range strategic nuclear ballistic missiles. An initial
    capability has now been deployed that will increase over time.

                               NEW ORGANIZATIONS

        In light of the new global threats, the Department has set up new
    organizations, commands, and leadership positions, including:
      --An Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and an Assistant
            Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense;
      --A new Northern Command to help to defend our country--which showed
            its value in the military's response to Hurricane Katrina; and
      --A Strategic Command that now oversees, among other things, defenses
            against ballistic missiles, and various other unconventional
            capabilities.

                                      NAVY

        A few years ago, three out of every four ships in the U.S. Navy
    were not deployable at any given time because of long maintenance and
    training cycles--the product of a peacetime culture and mindset.
        By applying advanced research and development, innovative
    maintenance and training, and a variety of cost savings initiatives,
    Navy leadership has changed the way our fleet operates and deploys.
        Today, the percentage of the fleet routinely at sea has increased
    by more than 50 percent. The Navy then was able to deploy only three
    Carrier Strike Groups and surge two within 30 days. Today it can surge
    six, with the ability to surge one additional Carrier Strike Group
    within 90 days.

                               SPECIAL OPERATIONS

        A word about special operations forces.
        In the past, these forces were largely limited to augmenting
    conventional operations and training foreign militaries.
        Today, the Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, is also a
    supported command, and has recently added a Marine Corps element.
        Since 2002, SOCOM has grown by 6,000 troops and its budget has
    nearly doubled. They have come a long way from the time when, as
    General Pete Schoomaker once put it, the special operations forces were
    like a sports car that was never driven for fear of denting the fender.

                             LEADERSHIP APPROACHES

        In the past, certain positions were reserved for those from certain
    services who had followed a certain career path. Given the new
    challenges our forces face, we now have, for the first time:
      --A Marine as a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs;
      --A Marine leading NATO and Strategic Command; and
      --A Navy Admiral leading Northern Command and NORAD.
        In addition, the President picked a former Special Forces officer
    out of retirement to become Army Chief of Staff.
        Not only are these flag and general officers doing a fine job at
    fulfilling the traditional duties of these positions, they have brought
    a fresh joint perspective and approach to the Commands they now lead.

                                  WAR PLANNING

        We have overhauled the way we plan for contingencies and the way we
    deploy forces. In the past, an enormous amount of effort and many
    months went into assembling detailed contingency plans that would then
    sit on the shelf while the world and the conditions in it continued to
    evolve and change. And the Department's deployment process was governed
    by an inflexible Cold War process that was designed for total peace or
    total war--a ``lever-on, lever-off'' system--and nothing in between.
        A case in point. As General Franks and his team at Central Command
    went to work to provide the President with a proposal for liberating
    Iraq, he felt that a modified approach was needed. His plan and
    deployment process were designed to do several things:
      --Preserve options and flexibility for the President as the United
            States and our allies pursued a diplomatic solution;
      --Try to ensure that Saddam Hussein did not provoke a wider war by
            attacking Israel, as he had done in 1991 with Scud missiles;
            and
      --Wish to prevent Hussein from torching Iraqi's oil wells, and
            creating an environmental catastrophe similar to what he left
            behind in Kuwait.
        And there were other factors to consider:
      --The Iraqi military was weaker than it had been during the First
            Gulf War, while the U.S. military, though smaller, was
            significantly more capable in emphasizing a number of
            technology advances;
      --A prolonged war could inflame the publics of the region--there was
            no Al Jazeera in 1991--and potentially destabilize key allies
            and partners; and
      --Garrisoning Iraq with many hundreds of thousands of American
            troops--which would have entailed moving a large part of the
            active U.S. Army to the Middle East--could provoke resentment
            on the part of ordinary Iraqis at such a visible and intrusive
            foreign presence.
        The plan General Franks and his CENTCOM team developed, with
    consultation and input from the Department's senior leadership--
    including the Joint Chiefs of Staff on numerous occasions--was designed
    to:
      --Maintain an element of surprise;
      --Move with speed and agility;
      --Depose Saddam Hussein as quickly as possible before he could do
            more damage to the Iraqi people and to the region; and
      --Maintain force levels high enough to provide a level of protection
            and security, but without such a heavy intrusive presence that
            might feed an insurgency and impede Iraqis from transitioning
            to governing and defending themselves--which they are now
            gradually doing.
        The Department has worked aggressively to overhaul the planning
    process for the Combatant Commands so that contingency plans are being
    kept up to date to reflect more current assessments.

                              RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

        The military has undertaken the historical changes I've mentioned
    while fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and across the globe in
    the long struggle against violent extremism.
        All of the many changes--to personnel, to the way the military
    plans and fights, to structure and organization, and to training and
    doctrine--have involved challenging assumptions and habits. At various
    points along the way proposed changes have understandably met some
    resistance within the department, the military, the press, the
    government, the Congress, and the industrial complex.
        Change is difficult in any large organization, particularly one
    like the U.S. military that has been so successful over the years at
    doing what it does best--which has been to fight other large Armies,
    Navies and Air Forces in battles along the lines of the First Gulf War.
    But increasingly the challenge today is more than only large armies--it
    is irregular or asymmetric threats. There is truth to the saying that
    ``if you do something, some people are not going to like it.'' And they
    will be heard from, let there be no doubt.

                                  THE LONG WAR

        But if there was any doubt about the necessity or urgency of these
    changes when President Bush first took office in January 2001, it
    should have been dispelled 9 months later when--despite the expenditure
    of more than $2 trillion on defense and intelligence over the previous
    decade--it took only 19 men, armed with box cutters and tourist visas,
    to kill nearly 3,000 of our fellow citizens and bring our nation to a
    virtual standstill.
        And today, that enemy, though under constant pressure and on the
    defensive, still conspires to bring its cult of murder and suicide to
    our cities--and to those of our allies as well.
        This ``long war''--this struggle against violent extremists--is a
    central security issue of our time. The campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan
    and other theaters in the Global War on Terror have added new impetus
    and urgency to the efforts to transform underway in this Department.
        Our enemies challenge free societies through non-traditional,
    asymmetric means, using terror as their weapon of choice. Their goal is
    to break America's resolve--the will of our free people--through the
    aggressive use of propaganda and carefully plotted attacks to garner
    headlines and instill fear.
        They are willing to employ every means--every lie, every atrocity
    and every available technology--to achieve their aims. They have become
    experts at manipulating the global media to both inspire and
    intimidate.

                             SHIFTING OUR EMPHASIS

        The unprecedented and complex tasks before us in what could be a
    decades-long campaign against violent extremism has prompted a series
    of shifts in the military's approach to its traditional missions,
    tactics, techniques, and procedures.
        One of the most important shifts underway is the role and
    importance of intelligence. The U.S. military has long excelled at
    engaging targets once they have been identified. We have begun a major
    effort to ascertain where the enemy is going next, rather than where
    the enemy was--to be much better able to ``find'' and ``fix,'' as well
    as what we have always been able to do--namely to ``finish.'' This
    means significantly upgrading and refocusing U.S. intelligence
    capabilities--both human and technological--and more effectively
    linking intelligence to operations in real time in the field. This is
    an enormous challenge for the dedicated men and women in the U.S.
    intelligence community. And it will take some time to achieve.
        The U.S. military is the largest consumer of intelligence. In the
    past, that term usually referred to tactical battlefield information,
    such as the size, location, and disposition of enemy forces, and the
    like. In the 21st Century, however, intelligence information can no
    longer be put into neat little categories. A single piece of
    information can simultaneously be of tactical intelligence value to the
    local military commander on the ground, but also of potential strategic
    intelligence value to our government.
        A word on the Department of Defense's role in the overall
    intelligence community: since September 11, and indeed since President
    Bush first took office, thoughtful people across this government have
    been trying to find the right formulas, the right structures, and the
    right arrangements so that we can provide the very best intelligence to
    protect the American people.
        Everything we are doing to upgrade and adjust the intelligence
    capabilities within the Department of Defense has been worked out and
    coordinated with the other appropriate agencies of the government--the
    Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, the State Department, the
    FBI, and on down the line. It is a constructive and open process, and
    indeed a continuous process--despite some of the breathless fictitious
    accounts of bureaucratic rivalry and intrigue that are repeatedly
    published in the press.
        In addition, not just the military, but our government, needs to
    shift from reacting to crises--as has been the case for much of our
    country's history--to preventive action to keep problems from becoming
    crises, and crises from becoming conflicts. We are also shifting from
    the natural American impulse to try to do everything ourselves to
    helping partners and allies develop their capacity to better control
    their territory and to better defend themselves and us against these
    new challenges. This is particularly important in a Global War on
    Terror where many of our nation's most dangerous enemies function
    within the borders of countries that we are not at war with.
        These new priorities have prompted the military to undertake some
    non-traditional missions in non-traditional places. For example, a
    joint task force headquartered in Djibouti conducts civil affairs,
    training, and security operations with Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya,
    Uganda, and Yemen. The weapons in this unconventional conflict are
    schools, clinics, and shovels. As one serviceman said, ``We're fighting
    a war down there and [we] haven't fired a shot.''
        This shifts are so important because of the nature of the conflict
    we are in. The enemy would like to define this war as a conflict
    between Islam and the West--but it is not. It is, in fact, a struggle
    within the Muslim world--between the overwhelming majority of Muslims
    and that small number of violent extremists. The vast majority of
    Muslims do not share the violent ideology of al-Qaeda. They have
    children and families they care about. They hope for a better future
    for themselves and for their countries. They do not want the extremists
    to win. And many are courageously opposing them at every opportunity.

                                      IRAQ

        We see this dynamic at work in Iraq, soon to be governed for the
    first time by a permanent government of national unity, elected under
    their new Iraqi constitution. Iraq has entered a hopeful new phase in
    what has been a long and difficult journey--from being ruled by one of
    the most brutal tyrannies of the 20th Century, to having a
    representative government and a free political system.
        Secretary Rice and I met with Prime Minister-designate Maliki and
    Iraq's other newly elected leaders last month. They seem to be serious
    people who recognize that they have a window of opportunity to make
    headway on the serious challenges their nation faces.
        The security situation in Iraq remains a serious challenge. But
    every day, every week, and every month, Iraqi forces grow in size,
    confidence, and capability, and are taking over more and more
    responsibility for larger swaths of their own country. U.S. military
    and Coalition forces continue to play an important role, but their
    mission has shifted fundamentally over the past year--from conducting
    military operations to assisting Iraqi forces as they take the fight to
    the criminals and the terrorists who threaten their sovereign nation.
        More than a quarter million trained and equipped Iraqi Security
    Forces are now in the fight on behalf of the Iraqi people.
        The size and disposition of U.S. forces in Iraq are continuously
    being assessed by General Casey and his commanders on the ground.
    Decisions about Coalition troop levels will be based on their
    recommendations, as has been the case since the earliest planning phase
    of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
        Since being liberated three years ago, Iraq has been governed by a
    series of temporary arrangements--a governing council under the
    Coalition Provisional Authority, an appointed sovereign government, and
    then an elected interim government. Though these were necessary
    arrangements, they were nonetheless temporary, and thus,
    understandably, engendered a certain amount of uncertainty about the
    future. The establishment of a new permanent government, under a
    Constitution the Iraqis wrote, and which was overwhelmingly ratified by
    the Iraqi people, is a significant step forward--it is truly historic.
        Iraq is today the central front in the War on Terror. Our enemies
    know this, even if some commentators in the West seem not to. Osama Bin
    Laden, referring to the United States, recently said: ``Their defeat in
    Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars.'' Ayman al-Zawahiri, his
    deputy, said: ``The arena of jihad in Iraq is now the most important
    arena of jihad in this age.'' And let there be no doubt, while the
    priorities of the extremists are focused on Iraq, their ambitions do
    not end there, especially if the free world were to lose its will just
    as the Iraqi people have begun to chart a hopeful new course.

                              SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST

        These developments make it all the more important that the Congress
    approve the President's full Supplemental Request for operations in the
    Global War on Terror.
        In addition to paying for ongoing deployments and operations by
    U.S. forces in the Afghanistan and Iraq theaters, this supplemental
    request includes funds to:
      --Train and equip Afghan and Iraqi security forces--a critically
            important initiative;
      --Counter the threats posed by Improved Explosive Devices;
      --Continue the needed transformation of the U.S. Army into more
            capable modular Brigade Combat Teams and support brigades; and
      --Repair and replace damaged or destroyed equipment.
        Delay in passing this Supplemental puts the military services
    critical accounts--in particular operations, maintenance, and training
    accounts--at risk as the services are forced to try to reprogram funds
    from other parts of their budgets. The Army and Marine Corps are
    already being forced to defer contract obligations and supply
    requisitions due to impending budget shortfalls.
        In addition, cuts and delays in providing funds for Iraqi Security
    Forces will undermine what has been truly significant progress in
    turning over greater responsibility and territory to Iraq's Army and
    Police forces. Keep in mind that these kinds of cuts most certainly
    will increase the burden on the U.S. taxpayer. After all, it costs some
    than ten times as much to recruit, train, and deploy an American
    service member versus an Iraqi soldier, and more than twice as much to
    sustain a U.S. soldier in theater. Any slowdown in training and
    equipping the Iraqi Security Forces has the added harmful effect of
    postponing the day that our men and women in uniform can return home.
        Finally, the addition by Congress of non-requested, non-emergency
    related items in the supplemental legislation will have the effect of
    forcing trade-offs concerning support for our troops in the field.
        At $439.3 billion, the President's Department of Defense budget
    request for fiscal year 2007 represents a 7 percent increase from what
    was enacted last year. This is a great deal of money, though at about
    3\1/2\ percent of gross domestic product, it represents a considerably
    smaller fraction of America's gross domestic product then when I came
    to Congress during the Kennedy Administration.
        I understand that on the House side some significant reductions
    have been made in the President's budget submission. It is important
    that the President's defense request be fully funded.

                                 MENTAL HEALTH

        Before closing, I would like to draw your attention to an issue
    that has been the source of some coverage and commentary in recent
    days--much of it inaccurate--and that is the Department's programs for
    screening and treating mental illness amongst service members. For
    starters, no military in history has done more to identify, evaluate,
    prevent, and treat mental and other health needs and concerns of its
    troops and their families. We have screened more than 1 million service
    members before, during, and after deployments.
        The Department has put in place a number of programs and processes
    to address this issue. They include:
      --Placing combat stress and mental health teams in theater;
      --Setting up world-wide support systems for soldiers and their
            families; and
      --Implementing a new program to assess and meet with every service
            member three to six months after they return home from an
            overseas deployment.
        The conclusion in the draft Government Accountability Office report
    that only 22 percent of returning service personnel identified as at
    risk for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder are referred for mental health
    support is misleading. The 22 percent figure does not account for
    numerous other service members who were identified and referred to
    their primary care physician or other professional counseling. This is
    exactly what we designed the surveys to do--help us identify issues and
    provide the proper level of care for our people.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman, I started out this testimony by talking about one
    group of young people who are donning our nation's uniform for the
    first time.
        I will end by referring to another group of young people I recently
    encountered who have been serving and sacrificing for our country now
    for a good many months and years.
        Two weeks ago I stopped by the USO station at Atlanta's Hartsfield
    Airport to visit with several dozen Army soldiers--Active, Reserve and
    National Guard. They were about to return to Iraq after their mid-tour
    break. I shook hands and I was able to personally thank them for their
    superb and courageous service to our country. And then the troops slung
    their duffle bags on their shoulders and quietly filed down the
    escalator en route to the charter flight that would take them back to
    Iraq. As they entered the main airport area below, various travelers in
    the waiting area started to take notice, and they began to stand up and
    clap--first in ones and twos, until just about everyone in that airport
    was applauding. Quite a different reception than that which many U.S.
    soldiers received just over a generation ago.
        I am told this type of scene is being replayed often in airports
    all across the nation.
        This is a reflection not only of the high regard in which our
    troops are held, but of the fundamental decency and strength of the
    people of the nation they serve. It reflects the appreciation and
    support for their service that has been manifested in this Committee
    and by the Congress.
        I thank you for your support. In this complex and difficult
    struggle the troops have done everything asked of them--and done so
    with courage. We owe it to them--and to the country they have sworn to
    protect--to provide the resources and the capabilities that will not
    only win today's wars, but also best to assure peace in the decades
    ahead.
        Thank you.

        [Disruption in the audience.]
        Senator Stevens. Whoever that is, will security please
    remove them?
        Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. What you've said, at
    just the end, about total respect for our men and women in
    uniform, I think, was demonstrated last night at the Olympic
    dinner. There was just overwhelming reaction to the young men
    and women there that came from Walter Reed to be with us. And
    it is something to witness, and we are all very proud of that.
        You mentioned the supplemental, so let me also mention it.
    I have had a talk with General Pace and with other officers
    involved in the departmental activity. We are approaching a
    Memorial Day recess, and that recess will take us into June.
    It's my understanding that the--finishing that and getting it
    to the President is absolutely necessary before that recess
    starts. Do you share that opinion?

                              SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Absolutely. General Pace is correct. We
    simply do need the supplemental passed, and signed, and those
    funds available by the end of this month.
        Senator Stevens. Well, there are a whole series of issues
    involved in that. I'm no longer chairman of that full
    committee, but I know that Senator Akaka has a very difficult
    job. But I do appreciate that. We must carry that word to the
    conferees, that it just has to be done.
        When you look at the problems we have, you also mentioned
    the National Guard. We're glad that General Blum is here to
    discuss that. You have mentioned that there is adequate funding
    for--or personnel for this activity that the President has
    announced--I'm sure we'll all support--and that is the
    deployment of 6,000 of the guardsmen and guardswomen to assist
    in the border activities. Will you need immediate funds for
    that? Can you--can the Department handle that between now and
    September, or do we have to have a supplemental for that, also?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I think the Office of Management and
    Budget is considering that at the moment, as to what the
    Department of Homeland Security, which is in the lead in this
    respect--I do not have any recent information on that.
        Do you know? Tina Jonas may have an answer.
        Senator Stevens. Ms. Jonas.
        Ms. Jonas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. We are
    working currently with the Office of Management and Budget to
    understand the resources that will be needed to do this. My
    understanding is that they will be forwarding to Congress some
    details on those resource requirements shortly.
        Senator Stevens. Thank----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. The----
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. You very much.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. The Department of Homeland Security is
    in the process, and should, by today or tomorrow, provide the
    Department of Defense the tasks that they would like us to
    consider performing to support their efforts--they, being in
    the lead. And, as you know, our forces would not be doing law
    enforcement or standing on the border arresting people or
    anything like that. They would be more in the technical area of
    unmaned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and language translations, and
    various types of communications support, and that type of
    thing----
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. General----
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. As well as construction.
        Senator Stevens. General Pace, my apology. Did you have a
    separate statement you wished to make?

    STATEMENT OF GENERAL PETER PACE, UNITED STATES MARINE
                CORPS, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF
                STAFF
        General Pace. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will be brief, but
    if I may say just a few things, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Yes. Good.
        General Pace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye,
    Members of the subcommittee. It is my distinct honor to sit
    before you for the first time as the Chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs of Staff to represent the 2.4 million men and women in
    the Armed Forces--Active, Guard, and Reserve--who are doing a
    fabulous job for this country--they have never let us down--
    and, on behalf of them, to thank each of you for your support,
    not only the resources you provide, but, equally importantly,
    the time you take to visit our troops in the field, the time
    you take to visit them in the hospitals--it makes a
    difference--and to take this opportunity in front of you to
    thank not only our military members, but their families. Their
    families serve this country equally well as anyone who has ever
    worn the uniform. They sit silently at home and pray for their
    loved one, wait for news of their return, and then silently
    stand back and pretend that they had nothing to do with our
    success; whereas, in fact, it's the love and support of our
    families that makes all the difference in the world to all of
    us who wear the uniform.
        I'm also proud to tell you that, for myself and for the
    Joint Chiefs, as a whole, that we clearly--your Armed Forces
    clearly are ready and fully resourced to conduct all the
    missions that this Nation expects of us. Over the last 12 to 18
    months, we've had--the work that has been done on the
    Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), on the budget for fiscal year
    2007, on the national military strategy--this has included
    literally hundreds and hundreds of hours of deliberations
    amongst the senior uniformed and civilian leadership of the
    Department--to my knowledge, in an unprecedented way. It is
    focused in on winning the war on terrorism, on accelerating the
    transformation, on enhancing our joint warfighting, and in
    improving the quality of life for our servicemembers. And this
    collaboration continues as we develop the roadmaps ahead to
    execute the QDR.
        As the Secretary pointed out, we are in a long war. Our
    enemy is ruthless and patient, and they have a plan. And they
    know that they cannot defeat us on what we consider to be a
    traditional battlefield, but their battlefield is different
    from ours. They are focused on our will, our cohesion as a
    Nation. And it will require our Nation's long-term patience and
    endurance to defeat this enemy.
        There are two areas in which I think Congress can help, for
    sure, as we look to the future, because as we seek to defeat
    this enemy, we are going to need a very robust application of
    all the elements of national power, which means, in my mind,
    among other things, an interagency collaboration and process
    that is effective, efficient, and quick to decide. We need to
    find ways, as you all did for us with the Goldwater-Nichols
    Act, and the results of that Goldwater-Nichols Act being a
    military that is interoperable, leading quickly to
    interdependent. We need to find ways in the interagency process
    to encourage and reward cross-agency work experience,
    education, and training, and also to find a way to encourage
    and reward those in other agencies who deploy with our troops
    overseas and do our Nation's important business that they are
    the experts in doing.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Last, we have an All-Volunteer Force. In truth, it's an
    all-recruited force. They have not let us down. They will not
    let us down. But we need the Nation's assistance, and all of
    the leaders and mentors in the Nation, to impress upon our
    young folks how honorable it is to serve this Nation, not only
    in uniform, but in any way that fits their own roles in life.
    If we do that collectively, then those of us who receive our
    most precious products, our young men and women, our sons and
    daughters, and who are taking care of them, will be able to
    sustain the force that we have and continue to fight this
    Nation's battles.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of General Peter Pace

        Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, distinguished members of the
    Committee, it is my pleasure to report to you on the posture of the
    U.S. Armed Forces. On behalf of all Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines,
    Department of Defense Civilians, and our families, thank you for your
    continued bipartisan support. That support has been exemplified this
    past year by Congressional visits to our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan,
    and elsewhere around the world; visits to those hospitalized; your
    funding for operations; your support of transformation and
    recapitalization initiatives; and the improved pay and benefits you
    have provided to our Service members and their families.
        Our successes in the War on Terrorism are due in large measure to
    the dedicated and patriotic sacrifice of our Nation's Service members.
    I want to thank them and their families for all they have done and
    continue to do to maintain our freedom.
        We are in a long war. Our enemy intends to destroy our way of life.
    They seek to expel American influence from the Middle East, overthrow
    the existing secular governments of the region, and establish a
    fundamentalist religious empire on which to base eventual global
    domination. To accomplish this they intend to defeat the United States
    and our Allies--not militarily, but by targeting our unity and our
    will. They aim to undermine our resolve by attacking civilians; taking
    hostages; inflicting casualties on Coalition forces; and using
    propaganda. They believe they can win against the world's most powerful
    nation because they see us as lacking the moral stamina to persevere in
    defense of our beliefs.
        This is not a struggle between America and Islam. Rather it is a
    conflict between those who love freedom and a terrorist minority
    attempting to take power from the majority. Our opponents are loosely
    networked and transnational. They are ruthless, adaptive, and convinced
    that they will win. They intend to do so by destroying the resolve of
    the America people by gradual attrition. They are a patient foe.
        For the first time, America's All Volunteer Force is fighting a
    long war. Our troops and their families know their Nation truly
    appreciates their service and values their sacrifice. Sustaining our
    troops and upholding the resolve of our Nation requires our collective
    leadership. We must underscore for the American public both the nature
    and importance of the conflict we are fighting.
        We traditionally think of war in conventional terms such as the
    Second World War during which the average American had a family member
    serving in combat, and shared their sacrifice on the home front through
    the rationing of goods. This is not the conflict in which we find
    ourselves today. Thankfully, the daily life of the average American
    citizen reflects none of the hardships or shortages we associate with a
    nation at war.
        Unlike past wars, territory conquered and enemy armies destroyed
    are not apt measures of success. The true metrics are public perception
    and the resolve of free peoples to determine their own future. Our
    national commitment to a long-term effort is key in this fight, because
    the enemy neither expects nor intends to defeat us in the short term.
        It is also important to acknowledge that the U.S. military has a
    significant role to play but that it will not win this war operating
    alone. Our interagency partners play vital roles in bringing to bear
    all the elements of national power to ensure long term success.
        To defeat our enemies and protect our Nation, we must
    simultaneously prevail in the War on Terrorism and prepare for the
    future. The proposed fiscal year 2007 Budget ensures we have the
    ability to conduct a broad spectrum of operations. Major conventional
    conflict, counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism, antiterrorism,
    stability operations, humanitarian assistance at home and abroad,
    disaster relief, forward presence, global deterrence, support to civil
    authorities, and homeland defense each require the application of
    tailored forces. The proposed budget funds this wide range of military
    capabilities, and provides our forces with the superbly trained and
    equipped men and women we need to defend America and its interests.
        As stated in our biennial review of the National Military Strategy,
    we are well positioned to accomplish our missions. Our Armed Forces
    stand ready to defend the homeland, deter conflict, and defeat
    adversaries. Allies and coalition partners play important roles in
    meeting these challenges. If an unanticipated contingency should occur,
    our formidable capabilities and those of our many partners around the
    world will ensure we prevail.
        The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) underscores the need to
    address today's operational requirements and those of tomorrow. It
    emphasizes the importance of winning the War on Terrorism, accelerating
    transformation, strengthening Joint Warfighting, and taking care of our
    most precious resource--our people. The QDR represents a significant
    effort to understand what capabilities are needed over the next two
    decades and is part of an ongoing continuum of change for the nation's
    armed forces. In particular, it underscores the value of speed and
    precision as force multipliers. The QDR reflects an unprecedented level
    of collaboration and teamwork amongst the senior civilian and military
    leaders of the Department. Our senior defense leaders are continuing
    this dialogue, and we are developing roadmaps to achieve the Review's
    goals for the future.

                            WIN THE WAR ON TERRORISM

        Iraq remains the central front in the War on Terrorism. Our mission
    there is clear. We are fighting to defeat terrorists and to help the
    Iraqis build a democratic, secure, and economically sound nation--an
    ally in the War on Terrorism. Our ultimate victory in Iraq will
    profoundly affect the security of the United States, our allies, and
    the entire globe.
        The past year in Iraq has seen significant challenges, but also
    remarkable successes. The Defense Department's Report to Congress on
    ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' describes the situation in
    detail. The steadily growing participation in three national elections
    in 2005 vividly illustrated the determination of the Iraqi people--
    Shia, Sunni, and Kurd--to embrace democracy, as does their formation of
    a new government. Entrepreneurial activity has significantly increased.
    Most importantly, the Iraqi people are increasingly taking greater
    responsibility for their own security. These successes demonstrate
    genuine progress and flow directly from the hard work of our troops and
    interagency partners.
        Effective governance, the rule of law, economic growth, and social
    well-being can only flourish on a strong foundation of security. We
    will continue to aggressively assist Iraqi security forces to assume
    greater responsibility for a stable and secure Iraq. Commanders on the
    ground will continue to make force level recommendations based on
    conditions not timetables.
        The War on Terrorism is not restricted to the boundaries of Iraq.
    As the events of the past few months have shown, we continue to combat
    terrorists in Afghanistan. In partnership with the Afghan National
    Army, our forces are actively engaged in rooting out the Al Qa'ida and
    Taliban. Likewise, our Provincial Reconstruction Teams, consisting of
    civilian and military professionals from the United States and our
    Coalition partners, assist Afghans at the local level in building a
    stable and free society. An indicator of our accomplishments in
    Afghanistan, as well as a catalyst for continued success, is the North
    Atlantic Treaty Organization's initiative to take on a greater role in
    strengthening security and development. This summer, NATO will assume
    responsibility for the southern sector of Afghanistan and position
    itself to later do so throughout the entire country. These
    international efforts reach beyond Afghan borders and help the region
    choose stability over conflict.
        We are combating terrorism in Southeast Asia. The Abu Sayaf Group
    in the southern Philippines and Al-Qa'ida's partner Jemaah Islamiyah in
    Indonesia present these friendly nations unique challenges. We are
    forging relationships, building capacity, sharing information, and
    conducting focused training with these valued allies. We are also
    working with other nations to strengthen maritime security in the
    Strait of Malacca and other strategic waterways. Our efforts contribute
    substantively to regional security and freedom of the seas.
        In Africa, we continue to partner with regional organizations and
    individual nations to improve their capacity to combat terrorism,
    secure borders and coastlines, and reduce ungoverned space. The
    Combined Joint Task Force--Horn of Africa and the Trans-Sahara Counter-
    Terrorism Initiative--developed in coordination with the Department of
    State--improve the ability of countries to foster security and
    stability within their own borders.
        In addition to regional initiatives, an array of coalition and
    interagency partners continue to work with us globally against the
    proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Legislation authored over
    a decade ago for cooperative threat reduction and counter-proliferation
    of Weapons of Mass Destruction anticipated one of today's most serious
    challenges. We continue that effort. The Proliferation Security
    Initiative expands international intelligence sharing, coordinated
    planning, and capabilities integration. Similarly, our ability to
    execute counter-proliferation operations is enhanced by the Weapons of
    Mass Destruction Maritime Interdiction initiative.
        Defense of the homeland itself remains a key mission in the War on
    Terror. Our efforts to defeat employment of Weapons of Mass Destruction
    by terror groups, as well as a strong response capability should those
    efforts fail, are critical. Terrorist attacks here at home against the
    Nation's citizens, its infrastructure, and its leadership must be
    prevented. Our efforts to date have been successful but constant
    vigilance is necessary.
        We are also confronting the threat of narco-terrorism. Ongoing
    multilateral operations promote security, improve effective border
    control, deny safe havens, and impede the ability of narco-terrorists
    to destabilize societies. Combating drug trafficking has particular
    importance for strengthening security and democracy in our hemisphere.
    Engagement with our Latin American neighbors to shape events and
    forestall crises is vital to protecting democracy for us all.
        Strategic communication is a significant component of the War on
    Terror. Terrorists rely upon propaganda to deliver their message and
    justify their actions and are not constrained by truth. We must counter
    those efforts. Our actions, policies, and words must reflect and
    reinforce our strategic goals and national ideals. What we communicate
    to our friends and foes is at least as important, if not more so, as
    what we do on the battlefield. We need a more cohesive U.S. government
    effort in this area.
        In the War on Terror, our allies and coalition partners execute key
    roles in defeating terrorists on and off the battlefield. Their
    capabilities and regional expertise are complementary to our own. As we
    move ahead in combating terror, we do so increasingly in combination
    with other nations who understand the danger terrorism poses to their
    citizens.

                           ACCELERATE TRANSFORMATION

        As the threats to our Nation evolve, so must the capabilities of
    our Armed Forces. Transformation today remains vital to the defense of
    the United States tomorrow. It is a process, not an end state.
        Transformation is more than harnessing advanced technology.
    Transformation includes rethinking our doctrine and operational
    concepts; adapting professional education and training to meet new
    challenges; restructuring our organizations and business practices to
    be more agile and responsive; improving our personnel policies; and
    reforming our acquisition and budget processes. Nowhere is this more
    evident than in our effort to increase interagency collaboration.
    Defeating terrorists requires more than the use of military force. We
    must harness and synchronize all the instruments of national power to
    win the War on Terrorism.
        Advancing a transformational mindset and culture that readily
    embraces interagency integration begins with our Nation's strategic
    guidance documents. Interagency collaboration is a theme throughout our
    National Security Strategy, Quadrennial Defense Review, National
    Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy, Joint Strategic
    Capabilities Plan, Security Cooperation Guidance, and Unified Command
    Plan.
        Nonetheless, we can still do more to enhance interagency
    effectiveness. Twenty years ago, there were serious institutional
    obstacles to our Armed Services operating as a Joint team. Today, in no
    small part due to the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols legislation, the U.S.
    military is increasingly a true Joint force, interoperable and moving
    towards interdependence.
        The Goldwater-Nichols legislation established a system of
    incentives and requirements to foster Jointness among military
    officers. We need to find similar ways to encourage interagency
    expertise. Rewarding interagency work experience, education, and
    training will facilitate better synergy between departments. Likewise,
    we need and should reward individuals and agencies that rapidly deploy
    and sustain civilian expertise in tandem with our military. Shared
    deliberate and crisis planning capacity among our interagency partners
    will also improve our Nation's readiness for contingencies.
        We are working to better integrate our Nation's diplomatic,
    military, intelligence, information, and economic instruments to
    forestall and address crises overseas, and to be ready to deal with
    catastrophic terrorism, natural disasters, and pandemic disease at
    home. Defense support to civil authorities is an essential component of
    protecting the Nation. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita brought this home.
    The American people expect their Armed Forces to respond in times of
    crisis. Teamwork among our Armed Forces and federal, state, and local
    government agencies--as well as private and volunteer organizations--is
    vital to the security of our Nation's citizens. Accordingly, we are
    preparing now to deal with circumstances that have the potential to
    overwhelm local government and private institutions. U.S. Northern
    Command is expanding its ability to take action swiftly in a variety of
    incidents, including providing military support to large-scale disaster
    relief operations and responding to the outbreak of pandemic disease.
        While transformation will allow us to better deal with
    contingencies at home, it will also improve our ability to boost the
    capacity of other nations to defeat terrorism and stop its spread while
    contributing to the security and stability of nations. The Army's Joint
    Center for International Security Force Assistance at Fort Leavenworth
    and the Marine Corps' Foreign Military Training Units are breaking new
    ground in this endeavor. Likewise, International Military Education and
    Training is a proven means of creating friendships that pay long term
    dividends when international classmates later work alongside U.S.
    forces in overseas operations. Constraints on our ability to implement
    this important program warrant review. These and other initiatives are
    examples of the value of developing capabilities and relationships to
    help promote security and stability worldwide, potentially precluding a
    need to commit significant amounts of U.S. resources to stabilize
    troubled nations abroad.
        Our foreign assistance framework was designed to influence and
    reward behavior during the Cold War. We need a new foreign assistance
    framework for the War on Terrorism to develop the security capabilities
    of fledging democracies and advance regional stability. Thank you for
    the Section 1206 legislation, which has empowered our capacity to boost
    the counter-terrorism training of other nations. It has made a positive
    difference in fighting the War on Terrorism. The support we provide our
    partners is essential to helping them police their own land and
    eradicate terrorist safe havens. Continual assessment of the countries
    that we assist, and the aid we allot, ensures that we are helping
    appropriate nations in the right way.
        It is not enough for us to be successful in responding to today's
    challenges. We need to shape the future with like-minded allies and
    partners. An essential element of this process is the transformation of
    our Global Posture. We are implementing a new Global Posture for
    defeating terrorism, deterring conflict, and bolstering the security of
    both established and nascent democratic states. This realignment will
    better position us to shape the future. This is well illustrated in
    U.S. European Command's reorientation of its forces from Cold War-era
    basing to an expeditionary forward presence that supports our friends
    and helps deny havens for our foes.
        In addition to transforming our conventional force posture, while
    maintaining a reliable nuclear force, we are shifting from our Cold War
    strategic deterrence to a New Triad with broadened focus on
    conventional long range strike. Prompt global conventional strike
    capabilities are required in the War on Terror as well as in future
    contingencies. In parallel with our efforts to develop a conventional
    long range strike capability, we are improving our missile defenses and
    national command capability. Your support for these efforts will turn
    our traditional triad into a strategic deterrence capability relevant
    to tomorrow's challenges.
        Finally, as we transform our warfighting forces, the Department
    will do the same for the acquisition and budget processes that provide
    material resources for our troops. Transforming the way capabilities
    are developed, fielded, and integrated enhances our capacity to execute
    a wide range of missions.

                          STRENGTHEN JOINT WARFIGHTING

        The U.S. Armed Forces' capacity to operate as an integrated joint
    team is one of America's chief advantages on the battlefield. By
    jointly employing our Armed Services we leverage their complementary
    capabilities as a team.
        We can and should go beyond our current level of Jointness.
    Strengthening our Joint Warfighting ability enables us to make strides
    forward in the War on Terrorism. It also accelerates transformation. To
    maximize our operational performance, we will transition from an
    interoperable force into an interdependent force. While doing this, we
    must maintain the expertise, culture, and traditions of the Services
    from which our military competence flows.
        Joint Professional Military Education of our military and civilian
    professionals provides the foundation of our force. We intend to better
    integrate our interagency and international partners in these
    successful education programs. In addition, our Joint Exercise Program
    provides valuable training for the Combatant Commanders' Joint and
    multi-national forces. At home, we are working with the Homeland
    Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security to establish a
    national security exercise program to help prepare senior leaders
    across the Federal government to confront crises more effectively.
        In strengthening Joint Warfighting, we continue to review, develop,
    and disseminate doctrine and operating concepts. The Joint Chiefs in
    consultation with the Combatant Commanders ensure that our doctrine and
    concepts provide a solid foundation for Warfighting. Those same
    concepts and doctrine also help shape the strategic guidance which
    drives operational execution.
        Our education and training, as well as our doctrine and operational
    concepts, are kept relevant by capturing lessons gained from
    experience. Our professional development and organizational agility is
    significantly enhanced by lessons observed from the War on Terrorism,
    and other operations, including disaster relief at home and abroad.
        As seen in deployments to the Asian Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and
    the Pakistan earthquake, our standing, rapidly deployable Joint Task
    Force headquarters dramatically improve our operational responsiveness.
    To enhance this capability, we will organize, man, train, and equip
    selected three-star and two-star Service headquarters to rapidly deploy
    as Joint Task Force headquarters.
        We are adapting our organizational structure to better exploit the
    intelligence we collect. The creation of Joint Intelligence Operations
    Centers at our Combatant Commands increases support to units in the
    field. In addition, the Joint Functional Component Command--
    Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, set up this year under
    the leadership of U.S. Strategic Command, deconflicts competing demands
    by coordinating the allocation of intelligence collection assets. These
    initiatives bring the analytical firepower of the Intelligence
    Community to bear for our troops on the ground, in the air, and on the
    sea.
        We are also harnessing technological developments to enable faster
    sharing of data among agencies, but we cannot rely solely upon
    technology. Intelligence collection, analysis, fusion, and
    dissemination depend upon our intelligence professionals. Human
    Intelligence is a vital enabler for collecting, understanding, and
    communicating information on threats and contingencies. Service
    programs for recruiting, training, and retaining key intelligence
    specialties have been refined to ensure we meet the increasing demand
    for intelligence personnel.
        We continue to examine how best to re-capitalize and invest in our
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capabilities. Sensor
    platforms that collect across multiple mediums are one approach. High
    altitude, long loiter unmanned aerial vehicles are another. Space based
    platforms should focus on surveillance capabilities that we cannot
    readily replicate elsewhere.
        In addition to benefiting our surveillance, space based platforms
    also play a central role in communications. Our deployed forces'
    strategic, operational, and tactical connectivity depends on the use of
    global, high bandwidth communications currently only available via
    satellites. As the gap between operational demands and military
    satellite communications capacity grows, we will continue to rely upon
    commercial vendors for the foreseeable future. We are also exploring
    alternatives to space-based communications.
        Networked ground, air, and maritime communications systems are the
    means with which the U.S. Armed Forces share information and work
    together as a team. New Joint acquisition strategies to replace
    Service-unique communications systems will advance our communications
    capacity across the electromagnetic spectrum. Common secure networks
    with allies will further increase coalition capability. In addition,
    the exponentially increasing importance of cyberspace requires that we
    increase our efforts to operate effectively both offensively and
    defensively throughout the Information Domain.
        In the realm of logistics, we are actively working to leverage our
    unmatched capabilities. The Joint Staff, the Services, the U.S.
    Transportation Command, and the Defense Logistics Agency work together
    to meet the personnel, equipment, and materiel needs of our Combatant
    Commanders. However, both the challenge of adapting to changing
    operational requirements and the demand to increase efficiencies
    require that we continue to enhance our logistics capabilities. Along
    these lines, we are working to improve unity of effort, domain-wide
    visibility, and rapid and precise logistics response. For example, as
    our distribution process owner, U.S. Transportation Command has
    strengthened our supply chains from factory to foxhole.
        Reconstituting the force presents real challenges. Our weapons
    systems and vehicles have experienced extensive use in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. Supplemental appropriations have helped us repair and
    refit during combat operations, nonetheless, we have more work ahead to
    ensure our forces remain combat-ready. Your support for resetting the
    future force is critical.
        As we reset, the combat power of our Total Force is being
    increased. By moving the Reserve Component from a strategic reserve to
    an operational reserve, we ensure it will be accessible, ready, and
    responsive. The Services have already rebalanced approximately 70,000
    positions within or between the Active and Reserve Components. We plan
    to rebalance an additional 55,000 military personnel by the end of the
    decade and also continue converting selected military positions to
    civilian billets. This revised Total Force structure will provide us
    with greater combat capability and leverage the complementary strengths
    of our Active, Reserve, and Civilian workforces.
      improve the quality of life of our service members and our families
        Taking care of our people is fundamental to the ethos of the
    American Armed Forces. Our men and women in uniform are our most
    precious resource. We must continue to ensure their welfare and that of
    the families who support them. The most advanced ship, aircraft, or
    weapon system is of limited value without motivated and well-trained
    people. Our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan remind us that the
    Nation's security rests in the capable hands of the individual Soldier,
    Sailor, Airman, and Marine.
        Quality of life, of course, transcends material considerations. Our
    young men and women join the Armed Services to patriotically and
    selflessly serve something larger than themselves. They serve with
    pride, and their families willingly bear the burden of sacrifice,
    because they believe they make a difference.
        A clear indication that our personnel in uniform understand the
    importance of their service and appreciate the quality of life that we
    provide them is their decision to stay in our Armed Forces. Our
    retention levels are over one hundred percent of Service goals. To
    underscore the point that our men and women serve because they know
    they are making a difference, units that have deployed multiple times
    to combat have seen the highest rates of retention. We are also seeing
    success in our recruiting.
        We are grateful to the Administration and to the Congress for
    closing the pay gap between the private sector and the military, as
    well for vastly improving military housing and enabling our family
    members to enjoy a good standard of housing if they choose to live in
    the local community.
        To our families, protecting our troops in combat is the most
    important measure of quality of life. Since April 2004, all Defense
    Department personnel in Iraq, both military and civilian, have been
    provided Interceptor Body Armor. However, as the threat has changed, we
    have continually improved body armor to ensure our troops have the
    latest and the best possible protection. Our latest improvements defeat
    armor piercing rounds and include shoulder armor and side plates.
        In addition to body armor, armored vehicles are important to force
    protection. Thanks to your support we have had great success increasing
    production and fielding up-armored Humvees to protect our troops.
    Nearly all the approximately 40,000 tactical wheeled vehicles in the
    U.S. Central Command area of responsibility now have armor protection.
    We will continue to adapt as the threat evolves.
        Improvised Explosive Devices illustrate the asymmetric challenges
    we will face in the future. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device
    Defeat Organization spearheads our work to meet that threat. Bringing a
    senior commander's operational perspective to this effort, retired Army
    General. Montgomery Meigs, former commander of U.S. Army forces in
    Europe and NATO's peacekeeping force in Bosnia, is leading this fight.
    With the development and testing of technologies, tactics, techniques,
    and procedures we are learning to defeat the tactics of our adversaries
    and increasing the survivability of our Service members. Our
    transformational work with private industry to experiment with emerging
    technologies promises to break new ground in this vital endeavor. Thank
    you for helping us provide the best possible protective equipment for
    our troops.
        Taking care of our troops and their families also means taking care
    of our wounded. During World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm
    twenty-four to thirty percent of Americans injured in combat eventually
    died from their wounds. Today, due to tremendous improvements in our
    military medical system, nine of ten troops wounded in Iraq and
    Afghanistan survive. This dramatic improvement is the direct result of
    the hard work of our Forward Surgical Teams and Combat Support
    Hospitals, and the rapid evacuation of the seriously wounded to higher
    level care facilities in the United States. In Vietnam, it took forty-
    five days on average to return wounded back to the United States. It
    now takes four days or less.
        Our remarkable medical professionals return to duty over half of
    our wounded in less than seventy-two hours. Advances in medicine,
    technology, and rehabilitation techniques enable us to provide much
    better care for those more seriously wounded. We make every attempt to
    bring willing Service members back to duty--or return them to society
    empowered to continue to make a difference. Congressional funding for
    this effort is greatly appreciated. In particular, thank you for your
    support for our two new Advanced Amputee Training Centers--at Walter
    Reed Army Medical Center, here in our Nation's capital, and Brooke Army
    Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

                                   CONCLUSION

        I testify before you today with tremendous pride in the bravery,
    sacrifice and performance of today's Armed Forces. Around the world, in
    every climate, and often far from home and family, America's men and
    women in uniform are making a difference. They do so willingly and
    unflinchingly--volunteers all. Their valor and heroism are awe
    inspiring and they serve this nation superbly, as have so many who have
    gone before them. It is an honor to serve alongside them.
        The past year saw the U.S. Armed Forces engaged in combat in Iraq
    and Afghanistan while we also provided humanitarian assistance to
    victims of the Asian tsunami, hurricanes along the U.S. gulf coast, and
    the earthquake in Pakistan. There are likely equal challenges and
    opportunities ahead for the U.S. Armed Forces. The imperatives to
    defend our homeland, defeat global terrorism, and transform for the
    future remain. With your continuing support, our military stands ready
    for the challenges and opportunities ahead.
        Thank you for your unwavering support in time of war.

        Senator Stevens. Let me resume my questioning, and then----
        Mr. Secretary, we understand that there has been a
    particular increase, a growth, in problems and in cost of the
    satellite programs. And there have been some suggested changes
    presented by Air Force Secretary Wynne and Under Secretary
    Sega. I don't--some of them are classified, but can you tell
    us, are these steps going to slow down this rate of growth
    and--do you believe the Department has that under control now?

                               SATELLITE PROGRAMS

        Secretary Rumsfeld. I would be reluctant to say that it's
    under control. My experience in the space business, both the
    intelligence side and the Air Force side, is that there has
    been, over time, a cost growth in those programs. I think there
    may be some reasons for that. One reason might be the fact
    that, for many years, as the Department of Defense and the
    intelligence community moved into these areas, they put in a
    factor--of some percentage--that reflected the reality, and
    their realization, that it was very difficult for them to
    calculate precisely when they were on the cutting edge and
    reaching into new areas. And, as a result, once that factor was
    taken out, whatever that percentage was, there tended to be a
    fairly regular pattern of cost growth or increases over what
    had been projected. Part of it is because it's new
    technologies. It is a difficult task. And I would be happy to
    take a look at some of the numbers and supply something for the
    record, unless, Tina, you want to comment.
        Ms. Jonas. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, one of the satellite
    systems that has had some difficulty has been the----
        Senator Stevens. Pull the mike towards you, please.
        Ms. Jonas [continuing]. Has been the SBIRS-High program.
    There are funds in the budget, of $700 million, for that, and I
    will tell you that Under Secretary Krieg and Under Secretary
    Cambone were just out this weekend and the other day on a
    review of that. So, I do know that, particularly Under
    Secretary Krieg, who is the head of the acquisition technology
    area, is--this is very much in his oversight. He's very
    attentive to this area. And he's quite active in it, sir.
        Senator Stevens. My last question, Mr. Secretary, would
    be--you mentioned the updating of the security forces and
    Iraq's own forces. We're told now that compared to September
    2005, when there were 2 brigades, 19 battalions, the Iraqi
    security forces now have two divisions, 14 brigades, and 57
    battalions. What is the goal? I mean, where do you think they
    would have to be, to be in control?

                                PROGRESS IN IRAQ

        Secretary Rumsfeld. The target that exists today is from
    the prior government, and it is to go up to a total of 325,000
    Iraqi security forces, when you take into account the ministry
    of defense and the ministry of interior forces, but do not
    include infrastructure protective services, or personal
    protective services for the people in the country. Whether the
    new government will stick with the 325,000 ceiling target that
    they have, I don't know. Until the minister of defense is
    appointed, which should be this week or next week, we won't
    have had the chance to talk with these new ministers and
    discuss that. But every single week and every month, the
    progress is going forward. And more real estate is being turned
    over, more bases are being turned over, more responsibilities
    are being turned over to the Iraqi security forces.
        I will say this. The new Prime Minister-designate has been
    very firm in all the negotiations thus far, that the minister
    of defense and the minister of interior must be a person who is
    competent, must be a person who is willing to govern from the
    center and not take a sectarian view to it.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        For Members of the subcommittee, Senator Inouye and I have
    discussed, and we've decided on, a limit of 7 minutes per
    Senator. There are--we expect 9 to 10 Senators during this
    period. I hope that's agreeable.
        I'll yield to my colleague and co-chairman for 7 minutes.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, the lead story in every network news and
    major papers reported that the intelligence community was
    monitoring U.S. telephone service through what is known as data
    mining. Now, I don't wish to get into the specifics, but
    apparently it was authorized under the auspices of the Director
    of National Intelligence. But because of the rumors and
    allegations that seem to be spreading around, can you assure
    this subcommittee that the Department of Defense is not
    conducting any of its own domestic data mining activities, to
    collect the records of U.S. citizens, or monitoring phone
    calls?

                             DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, let me respond this way. There
    are several things that have been discussed in this general
    category. One was the one you mentioned, which is the one that
    was authorized by the President, the National Security Agency
    (NSA), approved by the Attorney General, where Members of
    Congress were briefed from appropriate committees. And that is
    a separate set of activities which the administration believes
    are perfectly legal, and that appropriate consultation with
    Congress has taken place.
        There is a second category of activities. And I think they
    were called the ``Talon''----
        General Pace. Yes, sir.
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. Activity. And that
    involves the fact that the Department of Defense has the
    principal responsibility for providing force protection for our
    forces, in the United States and overseas. And, in that
    process, as they do observation of people observing military
    facilities, that could conceivably constitute a threat to those
    facilities, they gather information.
        The person who oversees that is Dr. Steve Cambone. When an
    issue came up about it, he immediately instigated an
    investigation of it, determined that some of the data should
    not have been retained, because it was not relevant, and, in
    one particular case, it had been some information that had been
    actually gathered by a different department, the Department of
    Homeland Security, sent to the Department of Defense, because
    it seemed to be relevant. It turns out it was not relevant, and
    he has instituted new procedures so that unnecessary
    information of that type is not retained in the files of the
    Department of Defense. However, we are clearly continuing to
    provide force protection to our forces here and elsewhere
    around the world, as we must.
        Senator Inouye. I realize this is a very difficult problem,
    but we'll have to work on it.
        Mr. Secretary, we have had many dozens of boards, blue
    ribbon panels, commissions, examine the issue of defense
    acquisition. However, it still takes a long time, about 20
    years, to produce an F-22 or V-22. Ships continue to have
    projected cost overruns. And we're still procuring, basically,
    for the Army, the same equipment it was purchasing in 1981.
    What can we do to help you to resolve this problem, or is that
    the way it's going to be done?

                              ACQUISITION PROCESS

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, I wish I had a good answer,
    Senator. As we've watched the acquisition process over 40, 50
    years, we've seen that it takes longer and longer to produce
    and manufacture and procure a weapons system. And we've seen
    that the costs tend to be greater than those projected. And all
    of that's been happening at a time when technologies have been,
    in fact, advancing at a much greater rate. Under the Moore's
    Law that computer power will double every 18 months, and
    technologies advance very rapidly, one would think that our
    capabilities and our technologies within the defense
    establishment would have to advance at a similar pace. Instead,
    just the opposite's happening.
        There have been so many studies--you could sink a
    battleship with the acquisition studies. We've got very
    talented people working on it. We've had talented, interested
    people in the Congress working with it. There have been outside
    organizations and studies. I wish I could say that we can be
    assured that that process will improve.
        I do think that one thing good has happened, and that's the
    concept of spiral development, where you reach in and bring
    forward some of the technologies that would otherwise have to
    be delayed until you had completed the entire acquisition of
    that weapons system. And, to the extent you bring forward those
    advances in technology, it mitigates some of the delays that
    will occur with respect to major weapons systems.
        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, every year this subcommittee
    is told that the Defense Health Program is underfunded--we've
    heard this in hearings and private meetings--while the costs of
    providing healthcare to our servicemembers and their families
    continue to rise. Your budget assumes $735 million in savings
    from increased fees in the Defense Health Program. However,
    since the House and Senate Armed Services Committees restricted
    the Department from implementing these changes, how are you
    going to absorb these shortfalls?

                             DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, we're hopeful that the Congress
    will not do that. As you point out, healthcare costs for the
    Department have at least doubled in the last 5 years, from $19
    billion to $38 billion, and the design of the system is such
    that there will not be constraints. It will continue to be
    unconstrained. And it will continue--if the healthcare costs in
    the society go up the way they have, it will continue to eat
    into our other needs.
        The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace,
    and his colleagues on the Joint Chiefs, have spent a lot of
    time on this. And I'd like General Pace to comment, if I may.
        General Pace. Sir, we did look very hard at the healthcare
    program. The healthcare program that you all enacted in 1995
    for servicemembers was a very, very good program, and we want
    to protect the benefits of that. The premiums had not changed
    since 1995, and the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs was that
    we re-norm today's fees to the 1995 levels.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. But in the----
        Senator Inouye. Thank----
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. Event that Congress stays
    with where it looks like it's heading, we'll end up with at
    least $735 million that we'll have to cut out of force
    structure or modernization or some other portion of the budget,
    because we simply will have no choice. And we need the
    flexibility we requested, and we need the additional
    authorization we requested.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Out of deference to the ranking member of the full
    committee and the senior Member of the Senate, we'll yield, to
    Senator Byrd, 7 minutes.
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, today's hearing could not come
    at a more important time. In addition to having troops deployed
    in large numbers to Iraq and Afghanistan, the President
    recently proposed a new mission for our National Guard, to
    assist in securing our borders. I have been a strong voice on
    border security. I have offered nine amendments in the last 5
    years to train and deploy thousands of new border patrol
    agents. Regrettably, the administration opposed all of my
    amendments, asserting that the spending for border security was
    extraneous, unnecessary, spending that would expand the size of
    Government. If we had spent that money beginning in 2002, we
    would not today be calling on the National Guard. This latest
    proposal to send troops to the border should not distract from
    the administration's consistent record of opposing my
    amendments to tighten our borders.
        This hearing is also an opportunity to ask questions about
    what is going on in Iraq, the cost of the war, this spiraling
    out of control. We still don't have answers to the most basic
    questions about the war. How much more is this war going to
    cost? When is this mission really going to be accomplished? How
    much longer until our troops start coming home?
        The President said in his speech on Monday that the
    National Guard would be deployed to the border to perform
    missions like building fences, barricades, and roads. Wouldn't
    it make more sense to have the Department of Homeland Security
    contract this work to the private sector and allow the National
    Guard to preserve its readiness to respond to natural disasters
    and its other traditional missions? How about that, Mr.
    Secretary?

                                BORDER SECURITY

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator Byrd, the proposal, as I
    understand it, is for the Department of Homeland Security to,
    on a very accelerated basis, increase its size and capability
    to deal with the border security issues. On an interim basis--
    up to 2 years, is my understanding--the President is proposing
    that the National Guard assist the Border Patrol, not in law
    enforcement, and not in arresting people, but doing the kinds
    of things you mentioned in your remarks. It seems to me that it
    will not, in any way, degrade or damage the National Guard's
    capabilities. We're talking about up to 6,000 the first year,
    and up to 3,000 the second year, out of a National Guard and
    Reserve component of 400,000 plus people.
        Second, the intention is for us not to activate the Guard
    and deploy them, as we do to Bosnia or Kosovo or Iraq or
    wherever, but, rather, to use their 2-week active duty for
    training, as we have been doing in support of the
    counternarcotics mission along the border for some time, and as
    we currently do, for example, with respect to hurricane damage
    and other activities. So, we believe the large portion of the
    individuals will be doing it on their active duty for training,
    and it will be beneficial to the Guard, because they'll be
    doing the very same things they would be doing if they were
    training their 2 weeks on an exercise basis, as opposed to
    doing something that the country really needs.
        Senator Byrd. Well, I don't think I've heard the answer to
    my question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the Department
    of Homeland Security contract its work to the private sector
    and allow the National Guard to preserve its readiness to
    respond to natural disasters and its other traditional
    missions?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I think that it does make sense for the
    Department of Homeland Security to use its own assets, as well
    as its contracting authorities, to do the things that it's
    appropriate for them to do. What the President's proposing is
    for the National Guard to provide some assistance with respect
    to some of those activities, on an interim basis, as the
    Department of Homeland Security ramps up to a greater level of
    capability.
        Senator Byrd. Do you intend, Mr. Secretary, to deploy
    National Guardsmen from West Virginia and other non-border
    States?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator Byrd, the plan, as I understand
    it--we have General Blum here, who will be deeply involved in
    it--the plan is this, that first the four border States
    involved--California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas--would use
    their own National Guard people to the extent they have the
    skill sets needed to support the Border Patrol. Second, the
    National Guard Bureau would then advise the State Governors,
    who would be in charge of these forces, where in the country
    those skill sets that are still needed exist, and then they
    would work out arrangements with those States. And to the
    extent a State Governor did not want to--for example, if West
    Virginia decided they did not want to participate, they would
    not participate. To the extent States would like to, on a
    reciprocal basis, which States demonstrated they do like to do,
    and are willing to do--and thank goodness they were, in
    Katrina; we went from zero to 50,000 guardspeople down in that
    area in a week or two--then General Blum would direct those
    States to some other State to make that request. Is that
    roughly right?
        General Blum. Mr. Secretary, you have it exactly correct.
    Senator Byrd, this is building on a long-lasting, time-proven
    model. If you remember, right after 9/11, when the Guard was
    put into the airports of this Nation until Transportation
    Security Administration could recruit and train enough people
    to take over that niche. The Guard provided that capability for
    this Nation on an interim basis until the proper Federal agency
    could stand up, train, and equip their people. They then took
    over the mission, the Guard left that mission and went back to
    being--doing other things. We did the same thing on the
    Southwest border with the cargo handling inspection mission.
    The National Guard, for several years, was on the Southwest
    border inspecting cargo until we could get the Customs people
    to get their own cargo inspectors recruited, trained, and
    equipped. Then, the National Guard came off of that mission.
        It would be my intent to work the National Guard out of
    this mission as quickly as the Department of Homeland Security
    can stand up their capabilities. What Secretary Rumsfeld said
    about the partnership of the States with the Federal Government
    on this, and the autonomy and the control of the Governors of
    their National Guard forces will remain in affect.
        To me, sir, I think the National Guard is superbly ready to
    be the military force of choice for this interim mission, until
    the Department of Homeland Security can stand up and assume
    this mission on their own.
        Senator Byrd. General, my time is running out. Let me ask
    you, how do we know that these deployments won't detract from
    the ability of guardsmen to respond to emergencies in their
    home States?
        General Blum. Sir, that is a commitment that I pledge to
    the Secretary of Defense and the Governors of this Nation. We
    have a very robust force of 445,000 citizen soldiers and
    airmen. We will leverage the joint capabilities out of the Air
    National Guard. We have sufficient soldiers to do the overseas
    warfight, prepare for the upcoming hurricane season, and still
    have the forces that we need to respond for terrorism in this
    country, or a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) event. As the
    Secretary said, the high-end limit of 6,000, only represents a
    little less than 2 percent of our available force, and I think
    we can manage that. If any State has a particular issue or
    problem, and cannot send their forces, we have many, many other
    choices that we can make, sir.
        Senator Stevens. The Senator's time has expired. I'm sorry.
        Senator Byrd. Very well.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Bond is recognized for 7 minutes.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I was encouraged to hear your comments about
    the coordination, the defense intelligence, and the rest of the
    intelligence community. And I believe it was indirectly
    referenced by--Chairman Pace. Clearly, we found, as a member of
    the Intelligence Committee, that we had a long way to go. And
    we look forward to that progress. We hope we can get Michael
    Hayden confirmed as head of the Central Intelligence Agency and
    move forward in that. I know that generally, your intelligence
    responsibilities are tactical; whereas, the other agencies have
    more strategic plans. That's not a hard-and-fast dichotomy, but
    it is one where there needs to be full communication both ways,
    in terms of both of those missions.
        Well, as you are well aware from questions and from our
    discussions, many of us on this committee and in the Senate are
    concerned that the Guard has been pushed around in policy and
    budget decisions within the Pentagon. And, Mr. Secretary,
    clearly we feel that needs to change. When the Guard's given a
    mission, the Guard's there to do the job, whether it's Iraq,
    Afghanistan, or Katrina. But too often when critical decisions
    were made that impacted them, the Guard leaders were shut out.
        As you know, 75 of us wrote to urge the Pentagon not to
    reduce the National Guard end strength, in December. But I have
    found it very troubling that the--there was--when the
    Quadrennial Defense Review came out, as you noted in your
    preface, quote, ``In the pages that followed, the Department's
    senior leadership sets out where the Department of Defense
    currently is and the direction we believe it needs to go in
    fulfilling our responsibilities to the American people. Now, in
    the fifth year of this global war, the ideas and proposals in
    this document are provided as a roadmap for change leading to
    victory,'' close quotes.
        Well, that sounds good, but we understand that the Guard
    was not at the discussion--not even at the discussion table.
    Now, we do know--I have been advised that, in this latest
    mission, assigned by the President to the Guard, the Guard was
    fully involved. And that's why the Guard has been able to
    adapt, and will use normal training times. And I think this is
    the way it should work.
        I also appreciate very much your encouraging words about
    the resourcing and support of the Guard. But I guess my first
    question would be, Can you explain how the Pentagon can develop
    a roadmap for change leading to victory with a key strategic
    partner in the total force, the National Guard, not even at
    the--in the discussions, or even at the discussion table?
        General Pace. Sir, may I respond----
        Senator Bond. General.
        General Pace [continuing]. Because I was at--I was at the
    table, as was General Blum.
        The process that you all have set out through recent
    legislation that allows the head of the National Guard Bureau
    to wear three stars, to have two-star officers on my staff, one
    representing the Guard, one representing the Reserves, worked
    extremely well during the QDR. During the QDR process, General
    Blum and my two general officers were at the table. So, it was
    not the QDR, sir, that got off track.
        What happened was, near the end of the QDR process, but
    separate from it, during a budget analysis that the Army did in
    November, that's when the Guard was not at the initial
    meetings, and that's when all this misinformation about how
    many troops, how much money, et cetera, took place. General
    Blum can speak for himself as to whether or not he believes he
    was properly represented. I was there at all those meetings. It
    is true that, came the time for making budget decisions, that
    the first meeting or two did not have enough representation.
    That was quickly corrected by the Army. But then what happened
    was, all the rumors that were out there, about x number of
    people being cut, et cetera, took on a life of their own.
        At the end of the day, the only thing that was ever
    presented to the Secretary of Defense from the QDR and from the
    budget process was that the authority would be for 350,000,
    that there were currently 333,000, and that, rather than put
    the money in the budget for the other 17,000, that that money
    would be reallocated inside the Army budget as the recruiting
    force was successful in getting those other 17,000, sir.
        Senator Bond. General, I'm sure we're going to hear from
    General Blum in a minute, but let me ask, When the--the way the
    military works when there are a bunch of--when there are four
    stars sitting at a table, do--does a three-star general have
    equal footing in that discussion?
        General Pace. Sir, you bet, if he's representing something
    as strong and as solid as the National Guard. Three stars,
    majors, whoever it is who's representing and has a knowledge
    base is what we're looking for. I'm not looking around the
    table counting stars; I'm looking around the table for the
    expertise.
        Senator Bond. General Blum, I guess I was misinformed. Have
    you been fully involved in all of the participations in all of
    these plans?
        General Blum. Sir, you have not been misinformed. What
    General Pace said is exactly accurate. I think it was a perfect
    record of what happened in the QDR, and then what didn't happen
    at the end of the QDR, that really was not QDR, it was really
    budget and programming decisions that had to be made. At that
    time, frankly--and I've told this subcommittee, and I've told
    others--that I was not consulted, at that particular time. The
    Secretary of the Army and the Chief of the Staff of Army have
    come in here and told this subcommittee, in their own words,
    that that part could have been done better. They are
    committed--and certainly this Secretary and this Chairman of
    the Joint Chiefs, are committed--to not repeating the long and
    sordid past that the Guard has had with its parent services.
    They're committed----
        Senator Bond. General----
        General Blum [continuing]. To a different path.
        Senator Bond [continuing]. I'm about to run out of time,
    excuse me, but I just wanted to point out that the Government
    Accountability Office, in talking about Katrina, said that poor
    planning and confusion about the military's role contributed to
    problems after the storm struck on August 29, and, without
    immediate attention, improvement is unlikely. And was the Guard
    not fully involved in the planning for the Guard's response?
    What happened?
        General Blum. Are you talking about for the hurricane
    response----
        Senator Bond. Katrina.
        General Blum [continuing]. To Katrina? I sat with the
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the acting Secretary of
    Defense from the very beginning of that--it was Secretary
    England, because Secretary Rumsfeld was out of the country when
    Katrina first hit. They were fully aware of everything that the
    Guard was doing, total transparency. We, in fact, did have a
    very prominent voice at the table during that entire process,
    and it worked magnificently well as a result--that piece.
        Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary. One National Guard question, and
    then I'd like to talk about Iraq. According to recent testimony
    of the chief of the Border Patrol, the Border Patrol currently
    has 11,300 people. If I understand posse comitatus correctly,
    the Guard, under Federal control, is restricted to logistics
    and support services. If there are 11,300 Border Patrol
    officers, how many support and logistical jobs are there that
    Border Patrol can be freed up from?

                                BORDER SECURITY

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, I'm told that an analysis is
    being completed, and is supposed to be submitted to the
    Department of Homeland Security this afternoon. And, at that
    point, they will come to the Department of Defense--and,
    particularly, General Blum--and say, ``Here are the things we
    would like to backfill or the additional things we would like
    done, some additional UAVs or some additional technical support
    or language support or construction support.'' And then,
    there'll be a matching of those capabilities.
        Is that right?
        General Blum. I think that's a very accurate description,
    Mr. Secretary--Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. Yeah. Because one of my big concerns is,
    we have doubled the Guard since 1995. Apprehensions at the
    border have gone down 31 percent. Apprehensions inland have
    gone down 36 percent. And the flow has continued. Something is
    problematic, in my view. But if you have 11,000 active Border
    Patrol--I've been trying to find out how many logistical and
    support positions there are, but I suspect they should be far
    below 6,000. And so, I will just leave you with that.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Sure. Yeah, I don't know, but I think
    you're probably correct.
        I mean, I'll give you one example of something that we can
    do. There is a training range in Arizona that has a 37-mile
    border with Mexico. And in the last year, something like 15
    percent of the training time, down near Yuma, we lost, because
    of immigrants coming across that border, and it was too
    dangerous to use it. There have been people who have died out
    there from not enough water or food, who were misled as to the
    distances they'd have to go. So, from a humanitarian
    standpoint, from a training standpoint, and from an illegal
    immigration standpoint, we could go to work, for example, and
    do the kind of fencing, that's been done in other parts of that
    border, in our training range, and advantage everybody by doing
    it.
        Now, that is not something that would be replacing
    something that the Border Patrol is currently doing, but it
    would be a very useful thing to do----
        Senator Feinstein. Right.
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. We believe, or at least
    we're looking----
        Senator Feinstein. Right.
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. At it.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I understand.
        Let's turn to Iraq for a minute. As I understand the
    situation--and I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong--the Prime
    Minister has until May 21 to appoint the Minister of Defense.
    They are wrangling. If he doesn't meet that time deadline, my
    understanding of the constitution is that the Prime Minister is
    replaced. Is that your understanding?

                           IRAQI GOVERNMENT FORMATION

        Secretary Rumsfeld. My understanding, as of this morning,
    is that he has made a decision with respect to the Minister of
    Defense, that there are two open ministries. I think they're--
    one is Ministry of Interior, and the other may be finance or
    oil--do you recall?
        General Pace. Yes, sir. That's finance, sir.
        Secretary Rumsfeld.--Finance----
        General Pace. Yes, sir.
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. That are still being
    debated, and that the hope or expectation is that, by the
    deadline, they will make an announcement.
        Senator Feinstein. Good.
        It's my understanding that both you and General Pace have
    expressed a desire to see a reduction of United States troops
    in Iraq from our current level, but you've stated this can't
    take place until a permanent cabinet is formed and that any
    downsizing would be based on the security situation on the
    ground and the readiness of Iraqi security forces. Could you
    provide this subcommittee with your personal assessment of
    where things stand with respect to downsizing the American
    troop presence, in terms of the security situation, the
    training of Iraqi security forces, and political developments?
    I'd be interested in what must happen, in your view, before we
    begin a major downsizing of the American troop presence in
    Iraq.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, we supply the Congress, I
    think, every quarter, a report that responds to that, in the
    broad sense. And it would reflect, I'm sure--General Pace's
    staff and I both go over it----
        General Pace. We do.
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. And it reflects our best
    judgment at that moment.
        If General Casey were here, he would say that there must be
    good--reasonable security, there must be a reasonable economic
    opportunity; and, to have either one, you've got to have a
    unity government. So, you're not going to get the security
    that's needed, in my--in his view, unless the new government
    engages the country, has a reconciliation process, and proceeds
    in demonstrating to the Iraqi people that they have a stake in
    the success of that government.
        Now, that's general. The second key thing, obviously, is,
    how many Iraqi security forces are there going to be, and how
    good are they, and how fast can they take over that
    responsibility? And we know what that trajectory is.
        Senator Feinstein. I think the point is--of many of us--and
    let me just speak for myself--is that we have reached a point,
    in Iraq, of major sectarian violence. If I had to take a guess,
    I am very worried about Muqtada al-Sadr, the Medhi militia,
    what's happening in the development. And the American presence
    becomes a kind of scapegoat for the militias to carry out
    operations against other civilians.
        I am really concerned about our people being caught in the
    middle of this. And it seems to me that the time is upon us to
    transition that mission and begin to confine our presence to
    logistics and support, and move our people out.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, we--I don't disagree with the
    construct that you've presented. We ought to be worried about
    Sadr and his militia. Armed militias, in a country of
    democracy, are inconsistent with the success of that democracy.
    And the new government, I will say, the Prime Minister-
    designate, one of the first things he did was say, ``We're
    going to have to address the militia issue publicly.'' Second
    thing he did is, he went down and saw Sistani, the leading
    cleric in the country, and got him to say that the issue of
    militias has to be addressed. So, there's broad agreement with
    that point.
        The second thing I agree with is that, you're quite right,
    General Abizaid and General Casey wrestle every day with the
    tension that you described, the tension between having too few
    forces so that the political process can't go forward, and
    having so many forces and being so intrusive that you
    contribute to the insurgency and feed the argument that we're
    the problem. And so, it's an art, not a science. They're
    terribly competent individuals, and it varies from different
    section of the country to different section. It also, as you
    suggested, varies depending on the role that you're playing. If
    you're more in the background, less patrols, more in support,
    in the combat support, combat service support, quick-reaction
    forces, Medicare--medical evacuation capability, those kinds of
    things are less intrusive than patrols.
        And so, you have exactly described what General Abizaid and
    General Casey are wrestling with.
        General Pace. And, Senator, the turnover process continues.
    We had 110 facilities the beginning of this year. We're down
    to--we turned over 34, or closed--turned over or closed a total
    of 34, down to 76. And for the rest of this year we're going to
    close probably another 20 plus, or turn over. The Iraqi
    divisions, there are 10. They are building--two of them
    currently are in the lead. The other eight are building
    capacity to go in the lead. Their brigades are over 30. Fifteen
    of those brigades are in the lead, meaning they have territory
    they control. They are building to 120 infantry battalions, of
    which currently--65 currently are in the lead and on the
    ground.
        So, as this political process continues, so does the
    turnover responsibility for more and more of the territory of
    the country, sir--ma'am.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        I've exceeded my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Secretary, the Air Force currently has an aging fleet
    of refueling tankers that are already experiencing problems.
    Given the age, the reliability issues, and maintenance
    challenges facing the current tanker fleet, the timely
    replacement of the KC-135s should be a priority of the
    Department of Defense. Could you give us your thoughts on how
    soon the Department is going to execute the new program? And
    how are we going to recapitalize the tanker fleet before the
    age issue and the recapitalization issue becomes too critical?

                            TANKER RECAPITALIZATION

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, the last I heard, the request
    for information is out, the draft request for proposal is
    expected to be out in September of this year. And if things
    work out properly, it should end up with a formal request for
    proposals by January 2007.
        Senator Shelby. Isn't this very important to the Air Force?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. It is. And the Air Force clearly is
    interested in it, and addressing it. If that timeframe persists
    and doesn't get moved to the right, that would suggest a
    contract award in sometime late of 2007--fiscal year 2007, so
    it would be, you know, in the third quarter of next year.
        Senator Shelby. But it's going to happen, is it not? Is
    that what you're saying?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. The Air Force is determined that it
    happen, and that it be done in a proper and orderly way.
        Senator Shelby. It is a priority for you, Secretary of
    Defense?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. It is.
        Senator Shelby. One of your priorities?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Sure. I mean, if you think of what we
    have to do in the world, we simply----
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. Have to have a competent,
    capable, ready tanker fleet. And we have to get about the task,
    over time, of seeing that the aging of that fleet is arrested.
        General Pace. Sir, and there's lead money in the 2007
    request for the first three aircraft that will allow us to, in
    fact, get on about building the airplanes, if, in fact, the
    contract is awarded.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, General.
        Mr. Secretary, the joint cargo aircraft, just the subject,
    there's--we've been--a lot of us have been closely following
    the Joint Air--Cargo Aircraft Program. And a lot of us are
    concerned that the recent decision to transition the Army
    future cargo aircraft into a joint Army/Air Force program is
    delaying the Army's needed replacement of the organic fixed-
    wing cargo lift that it needs. There's some discussion that
    it's the Air Force's lack of urgency here that led to the
    Senate Armed Services Committee, as you know, recently cutting
    the authorization for the joint cargo aircraft in the 2007
    budget. Ironically, all the money was taken from the Army's
    account there. Do you support, Mr. Secretary, the urgency of
    the Army's organic airlift requirement and the need to fully
    fund the joint aircraft--joint cargo aircraft in 2007?
        General Pace, you want to address that?
        General Pace. Senator, thank you. I am not knowledgeable
    about a problem with the Army's joint cargo aircraft.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        General Pace. All of our focus has been on getting the Army
    moved overseas, and that focus has been on the C-17 and the C-5
    fleet.
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        General Pace. A very robust mobility capability study we've
    just completed determined that 180 C-17s and 112 C-5s was the
    right mix and that would allow us to do our business. I will
    have to get back to you, sir, with any particular problem at a
    lower level than that.
        Senator Shelby. Of course, we're interested in the Sherpa's
    replacement, you know, in a timely fashion----
        General Pace. Aye, sir.
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. As you know. Can you get back
    with me on that?
        General Pace. I will. I don't have the facts in my head.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        [The information follows:]

        The Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request
    included $109.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army for the
    procurement of three Future Cargo Aircraft. I support this
    request. If funds are not made available for this request, it
    will delay Army platform fielding and replacement of their
    existing fixed wing logistics aircraft. The Army's Future Cargo
    Aircraft fills a Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)
    validated capability gap and has Defense Acquisition Board
    (DAB) level endorsement as part of the Army's Aviation
    Modernization Program.

        Senator Shelby. The joint common missile. We've talked
    about that before here, and, of course, there was a decision in
    2004, a Presidential budget decision to terminate that,
    although a lot of people believe it's a remarkably healthy,
    low-risk program. It was on schedule, on budget, successfully
    demonstrating important new capabilities for the warfighter.
    Can you give us a status report, General Pace or Mr. Secretary,
    on where the joint common missile stands, in terms of cost,
    performance, and schedule? What's going on here?
        General Pace. Sir, the joint common missile was a item of
    great discussion during the QDR. It was fed by the Joint
    Requirements Oversight Committee's deliberations, looked at the
    Nation's total needs for precision weapons. The Hellfire II,
    the laser-guided bombs, the joint directed TAC munitions all
    were assessed as providing for this Nation, the amount of
    precision munitions needed for the perceived warfights.
    Therefore, the munition that you're speaking about was
    recommended to be taken out of the budget so we could apply
    that $3 billion plus to other programs that were more needed
    than it, sir.
        Senator Shelby. What happened to the $30 million that was
    appropriated by this subcommittee last year that the Office of
    Secretary of Defense (OSD) withheld, do you know, Mr.
    Secretary? Can you get back with us on that?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I don't have that in my head. Do you,
    Tina?
        Ms. Jonas. Mr. Shelby, we will check, for the record, for
    you. My understanding, at this moment, is that it has not yet
    been spent, but we'll certainly----
        Senator Shelby. Yeah, it's----
        Ms. Jonas [continuing]. Will check, for the record, sir.
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. Been withheld, and we just
    wondered why it had not been spent.
        Ms. Jonas. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Will you get back with me on that?
        Ms. Jonas. We certainly will, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Yeah. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        The $30 million appropriated for Joint Common Missile in
    fiscal year 2006 is currently being withheld by the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense, as this weapon is a terminated
    program. Congressional report language encourages the
    Department to reevaluate this decision, and the Joint
    Requirements Oversight Council is studying the requirements for
    this type of close air support.

        Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary and General Pace, always good to see you.
    Always good to see all of you--General Blum. Some of these
    questions, I'd like to follow up.
        I listened to Senator Feinstein's question on Iraq. I get
    increasingly worried about that, that the--we just seem to have
    a policy of ``more of the same.'' The struggle to form a
    government goes on interminably. The President says there's a
    workable strategy in place that will allow for a significant
    troop withdrawal this year. But, since he said that, we've seen
    a huge rise in ethnic violence, the proliferation of militias
    that seem out of control, certainly a lengthening of the
    American casualty roster. Beyond that, it's anybody's guess how
    many Iraqis have been killed or injured.
        American taxpayers get the bill of over $1 billion a week.
    The meter is just running on and on. Former Senator from
    Illinois, Senator Dirksen, once said, ``That kind of money adds
    up.'' Now we're planning a $1 billion Embassy, the most
    expensive Embassy any country has ever built anywhere. And
    we're planning that at the same time we're saying we're not
    there to control anything. And then we build bases that are
    going to be the envy of military in most countries. Are we
    still going to see a significant troop withdrawal this year?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator----
        Senator Leahy. I know that's--I know that question
    surprised you, Mr. Secretary.

                                TROOP WITHDRAWAL

        Secretary Rumsfeld. No, indeed, it didn't. Needless to say,
    we would hope so. And, as the President said, he will wait to
    receive the recommendations from General Casey and General
    Abizaid and General Pace as to what they believe the conditions
    on the ground will permit. And as you continue to go up in
    Iraqi security forces, both in numbers and equipment and
    experience, we are being successful in transferring more and
    more responsibility to them, which, if they get a government, a
    unity government, and if the government is persuasive to the
    people of Iraq that they should have a stake in its success,
    then we ought to be able to make a reduction.
        Senator Leahy. Well, let me ask you this----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Let me just make a comment, though, on
    your ``interminable''--you said it was ``interminable,'' what
    was going on.
        Senator Leahy. Well, let me----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Let me----
        Senator Leahy [continuing]. Let me----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Let me just quickly respond. We go from
    election, November 4--this is a country with 250 years
    experience with democracy, and we go from an election, November
    4, and then it goes December, January, and the president's
    sworn in, and then the cabinet gets sworn in, in February and
    March, after confirmation.
        Senator Leahy. Mr. Secretary----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I mean, it's not much difference from--
    --
        Senator Leahy. Mr. Secretary, we're----
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. What we're doing, but
    they've never done it before.
        Senator Leahy. Mr. Secretary, we're not----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. They're breaking new ground.
        Senator Leahy [continuing]. We're not having sectarian
    violence in the streets all the time----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. True.
        Senator Leahy [continuing]. Either. And we have spent
    billions of dollars. We have rosy scenarios all the time. Is
    there any significant section of Iraq that the Iraqis could
    control the law and order with civil government, with the--with
    necessary services, without U.S. involvement?
        General Pace. Sir, there are 14 of the 18 provinces right
    now that are essentially calm, secure----
        Senator Leahy. So, we can withdraw from those 14.
        General Pace. To complete my answer to your question, sir,
    we are still in the process of assisting their armed forces in
    getting these skills they need. We have the battalions coming
    online--as I mentioned, 120 that are being built, 65 in the
    lead. There are still the logistics and command and control
    parts of their army that need to be built, for them to be able
    to sustain themselves completely. So, in those areas where they
    are currently in the lead on the ground, we are assisting them
    with logistics and command and control, and, over time, we are
    building that capacity for them, as well.
        Senator Leahy. General, in those 14, are there any one of
    them that the U.S. forces can withdraw completely in the next 3
    months?
        General Pace. No, sir.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you.
        It's been almost--Mr. Secretary, it's been almost like
    clockwork since September 11 that the National Guard is called
    up to carry out homeland security or disaster relief functions.
    And I think both you and I would join in praise of the way they
    have performed. They have been used to increase security at the
    Nation's airports, here at the Capitol after 9/11, and when I
    came to work, and thousands of others proudly came to work in
    this Capitol Building, just as thousands went proudly to work
    in the Pentagon, which was struck, we saw the Guard out here.
    They were at the Olympics, on the border, and then, after the
    Department of Homeland Security failed miserably after Katrina,
    they responded there and serving under the title 32 status on
    control of the Nation's Government.
        Now, I think it's the right way to call out the Guard in
    the United States, but it requires sensitivity to the needs of
    the State, adequate communication with the Nation's Governors.
    You've been asked this question by Senator Bond and others, and
    you and I have discussed this privately. It really seems, to
    me, that, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they--the highest
    advisory body to you and the Joint Chiefs, that you would be
    well served to have the chief of the Guard Bureau on this
    board. I referenced, when you and I were coming back on a
    flight from New York, that, when I raised that, there was an
    enormous amount of turbulence inside the airplane. It was very
    smooth flying outside.
        Have you had any change in your thought after you heard
    from Senator Bond, myself, and probably about 40 other
    Senators?

                                 NATIONAL GUARD

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator Leahy, I have reflected on your
    recommendation in that regard, and I've talked to Pete Pace and
    other members of the Chiefs----
        Senator Leahy. I know you reflect on a lot I say. Go ahead.
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. And I guess the short
    answer is, no, I've not found myself migrating over to your
    viewpoint on that particular issue. I think the way we look at
    it is that the Army includes the total Army; and the Air Force,
    the total Air Force; and that to begin to segment them inside
    the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not a good idea. And the Guard and
    the Reserves have to be well represented in the Joint Chiefs,
    and we have to assure that we have those linkages that work and
    are effective. But to begin taking segments of the Army or the
    Navy, the Air Force or the marines, and add them in, I think,
    is not the best idea.
        Pete?
        General Pace. Sir, we worked real hard for the last 20
    years, under the leadership of the Goldwater-Nichols
    legislation, to kluge together a joint force. And we have one
    Army, one Navy, one Air Force, one Marine Corps, and they are
    working extremely well together now. To divide our Air Force,
    to divide our Army by having an additional member of the Joint
    Chiefs, who represents a segment of both of those services,
    would do a disservice to the country. That does not mean that
    we do not need to have a robust representation of the Guard.
    And this committee and the Congress, in recent legislation,
    increased the rank, to three stars, of Lieutenant General
    Blum's position, gave the chairman two two-star positions, both
    of which are filled by quality officers. I recommend, from the
    standpoint of the rank structure, that we look to the
    commission that Mr. Punaro is heading, to take a look at the
    entire Guard and Reserve structure, see what responsibilities
    they have, see how many stars are appropriate, and to see how
    that might impact the other Reserve and Guard forces. But as
    far as being a member of the Joint Chiefs, sir, I would find
    that disruptive, not helpful.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
    Obviously, I'll follow up more on this, because I still have
    the concerns about homeland security.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Senator McConnell, you're recognized for 7 minutes.
        Senator McConnell. Mr. Secretary, it strikes me that
    Members of Congress, and, to some extent, the American people,
    are having a hard time measuring progress in what has been
    described as the ``long war.''
        Let me suggest that there are at least two ways that I
    think we can measure progress. Number one, we haven't been
    attacked again here at home since 9/11. And, I want to commend
    you and your Department for that, because I think the only
    reason that we haven't been attacked again is, we've been on
    offense, going after the people who would do us harm, where
    they tend to hang out. Another way to measure progress, it
    strikes me, is the reduction in the number of states that
    sponsor terrorism. Qaddafi had an epiphany after witnessing
    what happened in Iraq, and has been busily trying to normalize
    his relationship with us. You've got an emerging democracy in
    Afghanistan, an emerging democracy in Iraq, which we've all
    been talking about here this morning.
        It seems to me that's clearly progress, both in terms of
    the absence of additional attacks here at home, which we all
    expected, even later in 2001, not to mention over the next 5
    years, and the reduction in the number of states that sponsor
    terrorism.
        I've heard it suggested, Mr. Secretary, that somehow the
    Middle East is in worst shape as a result of an emerging
    democracy in Iraq. And I'd be interested in your views about
    how a process of democratization in Iraq could possibly make
    things worse in the neighborhood. And, second, I'd like for you
    to touch on the Iranian influence in Iraq these days, and the
    extent to which that may be complicating our moving forward
    there.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I missed that--what the word was, the--
    about--the second part of your question? I didn't----
        Senator McConnell. Well----
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. Understand the word.
        Senator McConnell I'd like your response to the suggestion
    that somehow the Middle East is worse off as a result of----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Right.
        Senator McConnell [continuing]. Of an emerging democracy in
    Iraq. And, rather than take up your time by asking another
    question, I went ahead and asked my follow-up question. I'm
    interested in your observations about the extent to which Iran
    is exacerbating the problem in Iraq.

                               DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes, sir. I think one way to look at
    the first part of your question is to picture Iraq today, were
    we to withdraw and the democratic government to fail, and the
    Zarqawi/al Qaeda people take over that country and turn it into
    the kind of safe haven that they had in Afghanistan. These are
    the people who behead people. These are the people that are
    funding terrorist attacks in other countries. These are the
    people who would take that country, and, therefore, that part
    of the world, back to the dark ages. They want to reestablish a
    caliphate. And the dire consequences for the people of Iraq,
    the 25 million people--12 million of them went out and voted
    for their constitution in their democratic election. It is a
    country that's big, it's important, it has oil, it has water,
    it has history, and for it to be turned over to extremists
    would be a terrible thing for that part of the world and for
    the free world, and for free people everywhere, in my view.
        I also would say that if people are concerned about Iran,
    the thought of having the Iraqi constitution and the sovereign
    elected government fail there would be the best thing in the
    world, from Iran's standpoint. And if people are anxious to see
    Iran successful in the path they're on, it strikes me that
    tossing in the towel on Iraq would be a boost for them.
        The second part of your question is hard for me to answer.
    We know that Iran has access across that border. It's historic.
    Shi'a religious sites are in Iraq, and they've been going back
    and forth on pilgrimages for decades.
        We know that we're finding Iranian-manufactured weapons
    inside of Iraq. We have information that they are engaged in
    funding segments of that population to try to advantage
    themselves. Their position clearly cannot be characterized as
    benign or disinterested. I would characterize it as unhelpful.
    The problem we've got is, unless you catch somebody from Iran,
    from the Government of Iran, physically bringing a weapon into
    Iraq, and you can tie a string between the two, you can't
    assert that it necessarily was government sponsored.
        Pete, do you want to----
        General Pace. Sir, I think you hit it on the nail, sir. And
    there's more that we could talk about in closed session, sir,
    but I think that's about all we should say publicly.
        Senator McConnell. I was not here at the beginning of the
    hearing, and I apologize if you've already gotten this
    question, but I'm curious, since I think we would all agree,
    everyone in this room, that the quickest ticket out of Iraq is
    the adequacy of the Iraqi military and police. Has someone
    given an update on where they stand these days? If not, I would
    like to hear that.
        General Pace. Sir, we gave a partial answer to that
    question. I can go down it very quickly.
        Senator McConnell. All right.
        General Pace. We stand, today, at 254,000 total Iraqi
    security forces, en route to 325,000. Inside the Iraqi army,
    there are 10 divisions, two of which currently control
    territory on their own. There are over 30 brigades, 15 of which
    currently control Iraqi territory on their own. There are 120
    battalions, 65 of which currently control property on their
    own. In Baghdad, for example, just a little bit over half the
    city now is controlled by Iraqi army and Iraqi police. The
    Iraqi army is ahead of the Iraqi police with regard to its
    capacity to stand on its own, because we started with the Iraqi
    police a little bit later. But the Iraqi police are undergoing
    the exact same training process, embedded trainers, that we
    have with the Iraqi army. We are now adding to the Iraqi
    police, so they are coming along. And the process is on track
    so that by the end of this year, the vast majority, 95 percent
    plus, of the Iraqi army will be manned, trained, and equipped
    and in various stages of capacity, and then later on in 2007,
    the police will be complete.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I would only add this thought, which I
    believe I mentioned earlier. The success of the Iraqi security
    forces is impressive. They're making excellent progress. The
    reality is that unless you have a government formed, and with
    strong, competent ministers that are going to govern in a
    nonsectarian manner in those key security ministries, the
    future of the Iraqi security forces can't be counted on,
    because they require a government structure above them, and
    ministries above them, that are capable and competent, so that
    there are chains of command and civilian control and linkages
    back to the government. And that's the process that's very
    close to happening.
        Senator McConnell. That's what we expect to happen by
    Saturday, I gather. We hope.
        Senator Stevens. The Senator's time has expired.
        Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Durbin is recognized for 7
    minutes.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
    Secretary and General Pace.
        Mr. Secretary, I've reviewed your testimony before this
    subcommittee since the invasion of Iraq, and it has been
    consistent. It consistently tells us the Iraqi forces are
    better than ever, the time is coming very soon when they will
    be ready to stand and fight for their own country. And yet, as
    the years have gone by, despite your testimony, we still have
    135,000 or more American soldiers with their lives on the line.
    We've lost 2,450 of our best and bravest. Over 20,000 have
    suffered serious, life-changing injuries and come home. And our
    Senate has spoken, that this is to be a year of significant
    transition. I have heard nothing in your testimony, as I've
    listened to it, as it's been related to me, to suggest that you
    have plans to make this a year for significant transition in
    Iraq. Can you tell us that, before the end of this calendar
    year, a significant number of American troops will be
    redeployed out of harm's way in Iraq?

                                TROOP WITHDRAWAL

        Secretary Rumsfeld. No. No one can. It's obviously our
    desire, and the desire of the troops, and the desire of the
    Iraqi people. No one wants foreign forces in their country. The
    President is the one who will make the decision in the
    executive branch of the Government. He has said that he's
    responsive to General Abizaid and General Casey and General
    Pace's recommendations, and that their recommendations are
    going to be based on conditions on the ground. We've gone from
    a high of 160,000. Today we're at about 133,000, I think. We
    have every hope that we'll be able to continue making
    reductions as the Iraqi security forces continue to take over
    responsibility, as General Pace has described they're currently
    doing.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, I will believe the
    statements about the viability and strength of the Iraqi
    security forces when the first Iraqi soldier stands up and
    replaces an American soldier. And from what I'm hearing from
    you, it won't happen this year.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, that's just not correct. I don't
    know quite what you mean by ``replaces an American soldier,''
    but they can--they had the principal responsibility for
    security for the elections, for the constitutional referendum.
    They----
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, the American people want to
    know when our forces, currently in harm's way in Iraq, are
    going to be out of harm's way, redeployed to a safe location
    outside of Iraq. And you've said, ``No, it won't happen this
    year.''
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I did not. You're not listening
    carefully. I did not say it will not happen----
        Senator Durbin. Well, speak----
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. This year. I----
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. And I will listen carefully.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I did not say it will not happen this
    year. I said I hoped it happens this year, but I can't promise
    it.
        Senator Durbin. Well, when we talk about significant
    transition, I'm afraid I don't have any evidence of it yet, in
    terms of----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, there's been----
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Our policy.
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. A lot of transition,
    Senator Durbin. And--maybe you wouldn't characterize it that
    way, but clearly there's been a shift in weight within the
    roles that the coalition forces are playing in Iraq away from
    patrolling and over toward the training and the equipping and
    the mentoring and the embedded process within, now, not just
    the ministry of defense forces, but also the ministry of
    interior forces. That's--that is a shift. At least I would
    characterize it. Wouldn't you, General?
        General Pace. Sir, there's a continuing process here. We
    started the beginning of this calendar year with almost 160,000
    troops on the ground. We're down to about 133,000, as the
    Secretary pointed out. We went from almost 20 brigades during
    the turnover and the election security, down to 15 brigades
    now. I----
        Senator Durbin. But, General, isn't it true that we ramped
    up the number of forces for the election?
        General Pace. We did, sir. And we're----
        Senator Durbin. And then brought them----
        General Pace [continuing]. And we're----
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Back down after the election.
        General Pace. We ramped up from 18 to 20, and then we went
    back down to 17, and then we went down to 15, where we are
    right now. And about 2 weeks ago, General Casey and General
    Abizaid recommended to the Joint Chiefs, and we recommended to
    the Secretary, that we not move the brigade that's currently
    prepared to deploy from Germany into Iraq right now until we
    take a look at the current situation on the ground, work with
    the new government, because it appears that the Iraqi armed
    forces, having built as much as they have, will be able to take
    over more. So, they--the Iraqi armed forces are taking over
    more and more territory. And I can show you a map after--when
    we're done, sir, that shows you, basically in two colors, how
    much of the country, which is about 25 percent right now, has
    been--is under control of Iraqi forces. And about half of
    Baghdad is in that territory, sir.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, General.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Could I say one----
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, I'd--sorry, I have 2\1/2\
    minutes, and there's one other issue I'd like to touch on, and
    that relates to the McCain torture amendment, which passed the
    Senate, 90 to 9. We were hoping that there would be a rewrite
    of the Army Field Manual consistent with the McCain amendment.
    And it appears that there have been some problems. I don't
    understand why. I want to ask you basically this. Do you
    believe that we should be working toward a consistent, uniform
    standard when it comes to the treatment, detention, and
    interrogation of prisoners? And do you believe, as the original
    Army Field Manual said, that every interrogation technique
    authorized should be--would be considered lawful--let me
    restate that. Can you assure us that every interrogation
    technique authorized by the new Field Manual would be
    considered lawful by the Pentagon if it was used on captured
    American servicemembers?

                             TREATMENT OF DETAINEES

        Secretary Rumsfeld. I'll try to answer. I'm not sure I
    understand the----
        Senator Durbin. Let me restate it.
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. Structure of the question.
        Senator Durbin. It wasn't clear, and I want to make sure it
    is. There's been a question as to whether you're going to make
    some distinctions in the Army Field Manual in the way we treat
    prisoners. And the standard that was published in the Army
    Field Manual, an unclassified document, was as follows, that we
    would not employ interrogation technique against prisoners that
    would be considered unlawful if it were employed against
    American servicemembers. Will that still be the standard--one
    single consistent standard?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Let me try to respond. The Army Field
    Manual rewrite has been undertaken. It's completed. It's been
    completed for a number of weeks. I shouldn't say ``completed.''
    It has been in a draft form for circulation for a number of
    weeks. I believe some portions of it have been discussed on the
    Hill. It is complicated, because of some definitional issues.
    It clearly is designed to comply with the law. Let there be no
    doubt about that.
        The--part of your question leads me to believe that it goes
    to the question----
        Senator Durbin. The law--it says there will be one uniform
    standard. That was the McCain amendment. There were no
    distinctions. Was that what the Army Field Manual will be
    recommending?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, if you're asking me, ``Will the
    Army Field Manual be recommending that it be, in every sense,
    complying with the law?'' the answer is, it will.
        Senator Durbin. And the interrogation techniques that will
    be included would be interrogation techniques which we would
    find lawful if they were used on American servicemembers?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Yeah, I am not a lawyer, as you know,
    and the reason I started to respond to that part of the
    question is, there is a debate over the difference between a
    prisoner of war, under the Geneva Convention, and an unlawful
    combatant, in a situation that is different from the situation
    envisioned by the Geneva Convention. And those issues are being
    wrestled with at the present time, but you can have every
    confidence that the Army Field Manual, which is, as far as I'm
    concerned, almost ready to come out, will be seen as, and, in
    fact, be, consistent with U.S. law.
        Senator Stevens. The time has expired----
        Senator Durbin. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. Senator.
        Senator Specter, recognized for 7 minutes.
        Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, has there been any
    objection by the Department of Defense to the format of the
    defense appropriations bill with respect to earmarks?

                                    EARMARKS

        Secretary Rumsfeld. I guess sometimes beauty is in the eye
    of the beholder. I can express, not a departmental view,
    because it hasn't been coordinated, but, to the extent that
    billions of dollars are taken out of things that we
    recommended, and to the extent things are proscribed from our
    doing them--for example, with respect to the military
    healthcare programs--and that we're restricted with respect to
    transfer funds and reprogramming in a manner that's harmful,
    then, obviously, it's inconsistent with what we recommended and
    the President recommended.
        Senator Specter. Do you think----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. And----
        Senator Specter [continuing]. Do you think----
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. Once money is taken away
    from one thing and put into something else--we wanted it where
    we recommended. On the other hand, the Congress's Article I of
    the Constitution, and the President proposes, and the Congress
    disposes. And----
        Senator Specter. Well, that was my next question. Do you
    think Congress has an appropriate role in the designation of
    earmarks?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I obviously think Congress has an
    appropriate role. The way the Constitution's written, they
    control the budget.
        Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. And I can read.
        Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, without getting into the
    substance of the comments of complaints by retired generals,
    has there been any significant impact on the morale of the men
    and women in the Department of Defense because of those
    disagreements?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I don't know that--I haven't done any
    polling or taken temperatures in that. I haven't noticed
    anything. Ask General Pace. He's around all the time.
        Senator Specter. How about it, General Pace?
        General Pace. Sir, certainly not within the building. I'll
    reserve my comments, because you haven't asked a question. But
    General Hagee is the most recent Joint Chief to come back from
    overseas. During this time, this was all bubbling in the press.
    He received zero questions from any servicemember of any rank.
    Sergeant Major Gainey, who is a senior enlisted advisor to the
    chairman, travels all the time, and he comes back and reports
    back to me, as recently as last week, that, in all of his
    travels, with as many people as he meets, not a single person
    has asked that question. So, as far as morale of the force, no
    impact, sir.
        Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, according to congressional
    research, 80 to 90 percent of the intelligence budget goes
    through, or is controlled by, the Department of Defense. Is
    that accurate?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, it's a matter of public record. I
    don't know what the percentage is. But a major portion is
    funded through the budget. And a portion of that ends up being
    administered by other intelligence agencies.
        Senator Specter. Has there been any reduction in that DOD
    control since the creation of the Director of National
    Intelligence?

                            INTELLIGENCE MANAGEMENT

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Oh, I think the answer is yes. I mean,
    clearly, once a law passes establishing the Director of
    National Intelligence and assigning certain responsibilities,
    we end up, technically, with somewhat less authority. On the
    other hand, before the law was passed I had a very close
    working relationship with the Director of Central Intelligence.
    Since the law has passed, I have worked very closely with the
    Director of CIA, as well as with the Director of National
    Intelligence. General Pace and I have lunch with him every
    week, and we've always had a very collegial relationship. And I
    wouldn't have thought of recommending to the President someone
    to head up a major DOD intelligence function without sitting
    down and talking to either the Director of CIA or the Director
    of National Intelligence, in this case, and discussing it. And
    the same thing's done on budgets. We do things with respect to
    the budgets on various satellite systems, for example, and
    we've established various memorandas of understanding and
    methods of operating together. And it's a very collegial,
    constructive, continuous relationship. At the top, down in the
    field. It's excellent. I mean, you talk to General Abizaid or
    General Casey, they feel they have superb linkages with the
    agency. And it's in the middle, where people, you know, chatter
    with the press and stuff like that, that suggest to the
    contrary. And I read these articles, and I go to Negroponte or
    Porter Goss or Steve Cambone, and say, ``What's this about?'' I
    don't see it. And it reads like fiction to me. Obviously,
    somebody's feeding that stuff, but I don't get it. I think it's
    mythology.
        Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, were the media reports
    accurate that there was a disagreement between you and General
    Hayden as to whether NSA would come under DNI or DOD?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, I'm glad you asked that, Senator.
    Let me just tell you what happened.
        Senator Specter. Thank you.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I go to work every day and spend, you
    know, 12-13 hours working, and I meet with dozens and dozens of
    people all the time, and I hear their views all the time. I ask
    their views all the time. And if anyone thinks that everyone
    always recommends exactly what I think, they're wrong. It
    happens 20 times a day that someone makes a recommendation to
    General Pace or to me that I either don't have an opinion on--
    now, in the case of Hayden, General Hayden came in to me during
    the debate in the Congress about where the National Security
    Agency should be located. The President had not taken a
    position at that stage, certainly had not taken a position that
    it should be transferred from the Department of Defense to the
    DNI. General Hayden said he thought that it would make sense to
    have it transferred to the DNI. Were you in the meeting?
        General Pace. I was, yes.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Yeah. And others had a different
    opinion. And that was fine. And the President decided to not
    transfer it over to the DNI. And I agreed with the President.
        Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for
    responding to my--letter from Senator Sessions and myself about
    the efforts in Colombia to liberate three men who were taken by
    the gangsters down there. And I've gotten a follow-up letter
    from General Sharp, and I appreciate that.
        I've--I know, from the correspondence, that you share the
    view that--and you say you are doing everything that can be
    done. And I appreciate your maintaining that. I think it might
    be useful to let the folks on the ground know all the things
    that are going on, because there is a sense there, that Senator
    Sessions and I heard, that they thought more could be done.
    But--I'm assured by what you have to say, but I think some
    assurances to them would be helpful, as well.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary and General Pace, for
    your service.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you----
        Senator Stevens. The Senator's time----
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. Senator.
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. Has expired.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. General Pace--we deal with the Southern
    commander on this subject on a regular basis, and certainly he
    may know more than I know, but we don't know more than he
    knows.
        General Pace. No, sir, I think we--I think what you said,
    sir, is that you understand the answer you got, but that there
    are some folks in the field who don't quite yet know everything
    that's going on. Is that correct, sir?
        Senator Specter. Correct.
        General Pace. And that is in Colombia on the ground sir, is
    that what you're----
        Senator Specter. In Bogota.
        General Pace. Yes, sir. We'll work with Southern Command,
    sir, and make sure that the people who should know, know,
    although everybody should not know everything----
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Your time has
    expired, Senator.
        Senator Domenici is recognized for 7 minutes.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Now, I'm not sure that I have 7 minutes worth of questions,
    but maybe I do.
        First, I want to--want to do my usual and say, to both of
    you, thank you for the work you do. I'm sorry that we don't get
    to have you appear before us more often and talk about what's
    going on, but you get plenty of opportunity to talk with the
    American people about how you think things are going in the
    American involvement in Iraq and elsewhere. And I want to
    personally thank both of you for what you do. I think your work
    is well received.
        Mr. Secretary, a couple of my questions will be parochial
    and not intended in any way to put you either on the spot or
    precipitate any decisionmaking. But you know we have Cannon Air
    Force Base over on the southern side of New Mexico. And it was
    created as a enclave, e-n-c-l-a-v-e, by the Base Realignment
    and Closure Commission (BRAC). I understand, from the Secretary
    of the Air Force, that the proposal for what to do with the
    enclaved facility, since you were charged with doing something
    with it, it was said you shall, and that it has now cleared all
    of the various interdepartmental reviews. I just wanted to ask
    a general question. Is it fair to assume that it's not going to
    be a lengthy time before the decision would take place as to
    what goes into the enclave, since all of the interdepartmental
    reviews have already been completed? Is it fair to assume it
    will take--the decision will take place rather soon?

                    BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE COMMISSION

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator Domenici, my recollection is
    that there was an end date in the BRAC process by----
        Senator Domenici. Well, it's way out----
        Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. By which we had to have
    done it.
        Senator Domenici. That's years from now.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well----
        Senator Domenici. They leave the enclave open for a long
    time.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well----
        Senator Domenici. But you are finished with your work, and
    I'm wondering when the decision would then be made.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, as I told you, we were very
    hopeful that we could get an answer to that well before that
    deadline date that the BRAC set. And I know you've met with the
    Secretary of the Air Force, and I've met with the Secretary of
    the Air Force, and they are not only aggressively looking to
    answer that question within the Air Force, but they're looking
    within other services and other agencies, as well. But I'd be
    reluctant to predict a date. This says the Air Force will
    complete its analysis in the late spring and apparently come up
    to me sometime midsummer. But then we have to see what we think
    about the recommendation. And they've been working closely with
    you throughout the process, and will continue to do so.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        Now, I have a--kind of, a real interest in UAVs. And I want
    to ask you if my assessment has any chance of being accurate. I
    believe that the operative--the ability to operate UAVs,
    continental United States, is being greatly impeded by the
    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), that the UAVs are not
    getting the fair chance to participate within the national
    airspace system, which is controlled by the FAA. If that is the
    case--and I understand it is--why don't we look for some other
    space in the United States that is not controlled by them, that
    we might do the research and do the training? I have a
    suggestion that you would look at something like the airspace
    that we have at White Sands Missile Range. In any event, leave
    out the suggestion, and just talk with me a moment about
    whether my observation and thought that the UAV is being
    impeded, in terms of being--its implementation capabilities,
    because we can't fit it within the national airspace system and
    the FAA holds things up. Is that a fair assessment, or am I
    wrong?

        FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION COORDINATION ON UNMANNED AERIAL
                                    VEHICLES

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, I don't sit in the shoes of the
    FAA, so I can't say whether it's being impeded. It is clear
    that they are wrestling with the issue of how unmanned aircraft
    should be managed in airspace that they control. And it is, I
    think, probably not a simple question, and it's complicated. At
    the present time, these certificates of authorization for
    unmanned aircraft to operate in controlled airspace take, you
    know, 60 to 120 days to get through. I'm not in a position to
    judge it. All I can tell you is, we're working very hard with
    the FAA to try to develop the flexibility that would be
    desirable. This is a new thing, unmanned aircraft flying around
    in airspace where there are manned aircraft. And it is not a
    simple thing, I think. And they--we don't have the rules or the
    procedures or the arrangements or the understanding or the
    confidence, and we simply have to just work it through with
    them. And we are, as you know--we share your desire to see it
    get resolved as soon as possible.
        Senator Domenici. Well, Mr. Secretary, I just want to
    suggest to you that everything you have just said is correct,
    but when I look at how long it has been taking for all of this
    to evolve, it's not months, it's years--1964 is when all this
    started. I do at least want to close this little discussion by
    urging that everything possible be done to expedite this work,
    so we can take advantage of it. It's--they're needed on all
    different fronts, and we've got to train them within this
    American zone, and that's being deterred. So, I just lay that
    before you and urge it, and thank you for your response.
        I have another one that I just want to suggest, that things
    are being done well in one part of the Defense Department, and
    I wonder if you would consider broadening it. Water
    purification. And I address this issue to you, General Pace. As
    you know, it has been a tremendous problem for the Department,
    and it--right down to marines who are trying to have clean
    water as they go through the filthiest war zones you can
    imagine. And there are ways to produce clean water for them
    rather quickly, in scientifically different ways.
        I want to tell you that the United States Marine Corps has
    worked to develop an individual water purifier system that will
    enable soldiers to gather water from any source, anywhere, and
    purify it into drinking water that meets the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) standards. I'm sure----
        Senator Stevens. Senator, this will have to be your last
    question, General. It's----
        Senator Domenici. Okay.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. Fine. I just want to know, since those
    efforts are within one department, General Pace, would it be
    fair to say that, since they are so important, that these
    efforts are being considered for the broader Defense Department
    so that they are not just for one department, but for the
    entire military, because they all need these kinds of things?
        General Pace. Sir, that is exactly correct. It is fair to
    say that. And, in fact, when I was the chair of the Joint
    Requirements Oversight Council, we had the Marine Corps brief
    the other services on just those plans. And they are moving
    forward on that. It will be a joint effort, sir.
        Senator Domenici. It will be a joint effort.
        General Pace. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan is recognized.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'm sorry I was at
    another hearing, but I've read the testimony.
        General Pace, you indicated that, in your percentages to
    Senator McConnell, the number of Iraqi troops that have been
    trained. And you talked about the number of them that are
    controlling territory on their own, and the amount of territory
    they're controlling. And yet, you said, in response to Senator
    Durbin, that there is no territory that is sufficiently
    controlled by Iraqi troops that would allow the withdrawal of
    all American troops. Those two answers seem at odds, to me. Can
    you explain them?
        General Pace. Sir, thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
    The specific question that Senator Leahy asked me was, was
    there any of the 18 provinces that could be completely turned
    over to Iraqi forces? When I answered him, I said, ``No, sir.''
    What I should have said, to make sure everyone understood, was
    that, for an entire province to take all U.S. and coalition
    forces out inside the next 3 months, the answer to that
    question is, ``No, sir.'' That----
        Senator Dorgan. So, the----
        General Pace [continuing]. Does not mean that they're not
    making great progress on the ground. As I said, in Baghdad they
    have over half, and other----
        Senator Dorgan. But----
        General Pace [continuing]. Locations.
        Senator Dorgan. But Senator Durbin made the point that I
    would make, as well. We have now been, I think, 2 years or 3
    years--I guess, 2 years--hearing a lot of good things about
    Iraqi security being trained up. And yet, it seems to me, at
    some point in a reasonable time, we should have trained up
    enough to be able to say to the Iraqi people, ``This is your
    country. The country of Iraq belongs to you, not us. And you
    have to decide whether you have the will and the capability,
    given the amount of money that we've spent training your
    security, to provide the security for yourselves in your own
    country.'' At some point, the Iraqi people have to make that
    judgment. And, at some point, it seems to me, we have to bring
    American troops home. I understand the importance of all of
    this, but I do think we've had a lot of discussion for a long
    time about how much progress we're making, and yet none of the
    territories that you've described--would we be able to bring
    American troops out of the territory and turn the territory--
    the province completely over to the Iraqi troops.
        I want to just--I want to ask about the retired generals,
    Secretary Rumsfeld. And I wondered whether I should do this,
    but I want to do it. All the time that I have served here, and
    the decades before, I have not heard half a dozen retired
    generals or so, some four stars, some very significant military
    leaders, having retired, openly critical--in fact, I think, in
    a couple of cases, calling for your resignation. Let me ask the
    question of you. Do--you've heard these criticisms. Do you take
    them seriously? Are there--are these criticisms by retired
    generals, are they raising legitimate issues? Are they issues
    that resonate with you? Give me your assessment of what's
    happening with some very significant criticism from folks who
    used to be military leaders in this country.

                          RETIRED GENERALS' CRITICISM

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, sure I take things seriously. And
    I've wanted to reflect on it. I read a lot of history, and I
    guess I don't think there's ever been a war where there haven't
    been disputes and differences among generals, and between
    generals and civilians, and among civilians. Think back,
    General McClellan called Abraham Lincoln a ``gorilla'' and an
    ``ape.'' So, this is not new. There hasn't been a time when
    there haven't been people of different views.
        There are 7,500 active and retired generals and admirals.
    You've characterized what some have said. It's a relatively
    unusual thing, and I quite agree with you in that regard. And
    then you say, Is any of it valid? There are those who have
    consistently disagreed with the size of the force. And I guess
    history's going to have to make that judgment. But the truth is
    that the size of the force was the size that was selected by
    General Tom Franks, approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
    Chairman and the Vice Chairman, one of whom is sitting next to
    me, recommended to the President. And that was the number.
        Now, if people don't like that number, and they want to
    blame somebody, fine, they blame me. That goes with the
    territory. It is a fact that it is a tough call. It's not a
    science; it's an art, coming up with those numbers.
        The second thing I would say is, I really honestly believe
    that if you undertake the kinds of transforming in this
    Department, any big department, and if you do something,
    somebody's not going to like it. And we've done a lot. We have
    a new personnel system that the Congress passed that a lot of
    people don't like, and they're arguing. We've put a marine in
    as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs for the first time, and there
    are people who don't like that. I brought a retired general in
    to run the Army, and there are people who didn't like that.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. We've done a lot to change that
    Department, and, in every instance, there's resistance, as
    there always will be in big organizations.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, we're stretched pretty thin
    on a range of--in a range of areas--National Guard and other
    areas. Do you foresee any circumstance under which, in the
    future, the Secretary of Defense will recommend the
    reinstitution of a military draft?

                                 MILITARY DRAFT

        Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, I hate to answer the second part
    first, but I will. The answer is, flat, no. We don't need a
    draft. It would be harmful to reinstitute a draft. We have a
    country of, what, close to 300 million people, and we have an
    active duty force of 1.4 million, and Guard and Reserve of
    another 450,000. And all we need to do is what anyone else with
    a volunteer entity has to do, and that's adjust the incentives
    so that you can attract and retain the people you need and have
    to have to defend this country. And, thank the good Lord, there
    are plenty of people putting their hands up and volunteering to
    do that, even though they could possibly be in a safer position
    or a more comfortable position. And they're doing it.
        So I wouldn't even think of it. But, in my view, the
    premise of your question was wrong. You say the Guard and the
    Reserve and the force is stressed.
        Senator Dorgan. No, I said stretched pretty thin.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Stretched pretty thin. Well, I mean, I
    think that they are doing a terrific job, and we are moving a
    number of military people out of civilian functions into
    military functions, tens of thousands. So, we're increasing the
    size of the force and reducing that stress. We have a meeting
    once a month, going over all--something like 37 things, 38
    things--to reduce stress on the force, and stretch--I forget
    the word you used--but----
        Senator Dorgan. Stretched thin. But let me make the point,
    I didn't suggest they weren't doing a great job. That wasn't
    the point of my question.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. No, I know that. But in terms of the
    ``stretched thin,'' I mean, out of the blue, people are saying,
    ``Oh, my goodness, the President wants to put 6,000 people down
    to help the Border Patrol, and the Guard's already exhausted.''
    Well, the fact of the matter is, only about--the force over in
    Iraq is about 19 percent Guard and Reserve, I think, at the
    present time, General Blum. And we've got 450,000 Guard and
    Reserve. And he's talking about 6,000 for 1 year, and they're
    going to be doing it on their active duty for training. There's
    so much misinformation flying around about this, and it is not
    going to be a stress on the National Guard to do that function.
    They're going to be able to do what the Governors need them to
    do as well. I have every confidence that they can do that.
        General Pace. Senator, may I have----
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, my time is--yes?
        General Pace. Mr. Chairman, may I impose on you to ask for
    1 minute?
        Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
        General Pace. Thank you. Because it's important, as I sit
    here representing the uniformed military, that I speak my mind
    about the opportunity for the uniformed leadership to inform,
    digest, debate, have dialogue with the civilian leadership. And
    it is a daily ongoing process, whether it be a combatant
    commander who brings his ideas forward to ``The Tank'' and the
    Secretary, and we have the iterative process that goes on every
    day, or if it's the 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 hours every day that I
    spend with the Secretary of Defense listening to briefings.
    Every single officer who walks into the Secretary of Defense's
    office is expected to speak his or her mind, and is encouraged
    to do so. And our Armed Forces need to understand clearly from
    their chairman that all of their leaders are expected,
    encouraged, and are afforded the opportunity to have a very
    open, honest dialogue about what we believe and what we don't
    believe.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me thank both the General
    and the Secretary for coming and making themselves available
    for questions. And I expect you started, as we all would, to
    thank the men and women who wear America's uniform.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much.
        I'm constrained to say that I recall the days of the draft.
    And Senator Goldwater and I didn't believe that a draft should
    take place in a democracy, short of an all-out war. And I
    introduced an amendment to draft women. Did you know that, Mr.
    Secretary? And, of course, it failed the Senate. But the Senate
    woke up to the fact that it was discrimination, and it was not
    a time when we should have a draft. We still have registration
    for the draft, still have the possibility of a draft if we get
    into a world war.
        But, second, I think you were very fair in your questions,
    and we appreciate the Secretary's answer to clear up the thing.
        But I have been privileged, Mr. Secretary, at your
    invitation--and I think Senator Inouye's gone to some--to go to
    some of the dinners that you've had informally with your--
    members of the Joint Chiefs and with other officers. And I can
    tell you that, in my 38 years, I've never seen the ambience
    that I have seen, in terms of the open dialogue, General, open
    discussion, and sometimes with wives, sometimes without them,
    the Secretary has had these gatherings. And I personally
    appreciate the openness that is existing now in the military. I
    think military officers feel free to stand up and say what they
    want to say, whether they're retired or otherwise. And that's--
    this is the democracy. First amendment still applies to people
    in uniform, General. And I appreciate the fact that you're
    insisting on that, and that the Secretary encourages it.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        So, we appreciate your coming. We appreciate both of your
    service to this Nation, and, really, can't tell you how much we
    all appreciate the overwhelming courage and commitment of the
    young people under your command.
        So, we'll stand in--
        Senator, do you have any further comment?
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department subsequent to the hearing:]

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

        Question. Do you agree that, since these facilities are associated
    with BRAC recommendations, BRAC funds should be used for these
    construction projects?
        Answer. Yes, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) funds should be
    used for the construction requirements associated with Commission
    recommendation number 33 (Reserve Component Transformation in New
    Mexico) and Commission recommendation number 187 (Defense Research
    Service Led Laboratories).
        Question. What does Fort Bliss need from White Sands Missile Range
    and Holloman Air Force Base in order to conduct field testing relating
    to the Future Combat System in New Mexico?
        Answer. Fort Bliss, Texas, was selected as the home for field
    testing the Army's Future Combat System (FCS) because of its access to
    White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) and the proximity to the Holloman Air
    Force Base. The area provides the requisite land, airspace, and
    facilities for Evaluation Brigade Combat Team Soldiers to fully train,
    test and evaluate FCS capabilities. Other examples of support include
    air traffic control, frequency management, and range scheduling. We
    anticipate using these resources at all affected facilities. While the
    development, training and testing of an FCS-equipped force is a
    significant task, from a test/training event coordination perspective
    it is one that is not dissimilar from other major exercises such as
    Roving Sands. Success will depend on close coordination and
    communication between the FCS program management office, Fort Bliss,
    WSMR, and Holloman AFB. Much work has already occurred. WSMR and Fort
    Bliss have conducted regular interchanges in the past and continue to
    coordinate emerging detailed requirements. Similarly, there are joint
    agreements between WSMR and Holloman AFB that will be exercised as more
    detailed test plans are finalized.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, I would appreciate your perspective on the
    importance of basic research.
        Answer. Department of Defense (DOD)-sponsored basic research
    produces new knowledge and understanding that underpins the development
    of future military capabilities. Prior basic research enabled us to
    develop today's revolutionary military capabilities, including the
    Global Positioning System, stealth, night vision devices, and precision
    strike. We expect equally important new capabilities to emerge over the
    long-term from today's investments in basic research. Our support for
    basic research today will help to give future leaders the capability
    edge they need to deter potential adversaries and, if necessary,
    conduct military operations.
        Basic research has an additional long-term benefit to the DOD
    because universities are the predominant performers of basic research
    in this country and university research is inextricably linked with the
    training of scientists and engineers in fields important to national
    defense. DOD-supported basic research thereby helps to ensure the
    future availability of talent needed for defense research and
    development.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

        Question. Has the Department of Defense (DOD) determined which
    items from the War Reserve Stocks for Allies, Korea (WRSA-K) will be
    offered to the Republic of Korea (ROK)? Has a formal offer been made to
    the ROK? If so, please provide a comprehensive list with types and
    quantities. Please also indicate what items are not being offered.
        Answer. Yes, DOD has determined which items from the War Reserve
    Stocks for Allies, Korea (WRSA-K) will be offered to the Republic of
    Korea (ROK) in negotiations. Pending authority to negotiate a War
    Reserve Stockpile agreement, a formal offer has not been made to the
    ROK. Although a formal offer has not been made to the ROK, attached are
    seven lists of the types and quantities of items that will be offered
    to the ROK, and items that will not be offered, as follows: (1) U.S.
    Army WRSA-K munitions items that will be offered; (2) U.S. Army WRSA-K
    munitions items that will be retained, (3) U.S. Army WRSA-K non-
    munitions items that will be offered; (4) U.S. Army WRSA-K non-
    munitions items that will be retained, (5) U.S. Navy WRSA-K munitions
    items that will be offered, (6) U.S. Air Force WRSA-K munitions items
    that will be offered; and (7) U.S. Air Force WRSA-K munitions items
    that will be retained.
        Question. Has a formal offer been made to the ROK? If so, please
    provide a written copy.
        Answer. No, a formal offer has not been made to the Republic of
    Korea (ROK).
        Question. Please provide the number, quantity and type of
    antipersonnel mines and mine-related equipment, including delivery
    systems, now included in the War Reserve Stocks for Allies, Korea.
        Answer. The number of Claymore K143 mines now in War Reserve Stocks
    for Allies, Korea (WRSA-K) stocks is 166,895. Of that number, 57,625
    will be retained by the Army. The number of Claymore K145 mines now in
    WRSA-K stocks is 25,580. A total of 134,580 Claymore mines (K143 and
    K145) will be negotiated for transfer to the Republic of Korea (ROK).
    There also are 83,479 K092 mines and 480,267 K121 mines in WRSA-K
    stocks. All of the K092 or K121 mines will be retained by the Army.
    There is no other mine-related equipment, including delivery systems,
    in the WRSA-K stocks.

                                                            U.S. ARMY WRSA-K MUNITIONS TO BE RETAINED
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  RETAIN
                  DODIC                         CC              QOH    TRANSFER  FOR U.S.           ACC                          NOMENCLATURE
                                                                       TO KOREA     USE
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    K092.............................  A...................    24,543  ........    24,543  ROK.................  MINE ANTIPERSONNEL: M16 SERIES W/FU
    K092.............................  H...................         2  ........         2  DRK.................  MINE ANTIPERSONNEL: M16 SERIES W/FU
    K092.............................  N...................    58,934  ........    58,934  WRK.................  MINE ANTIPERSONNEL: M16 SERIES W/FU
    K121.............................  A...................   480,267  ........   480,267  ROK.................  MINE ANTIPERSONNEL: M14 NON METALLI
    K143.............................  A...................    57,625  ........    57,625  ROK.................  MINE ANTIPERSONNEL: M18A1 W/ACCESSO
                                                                                ----------
          TOTALS.....................  ....................  ........  ........   621,371  ....................  ...........................................
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                            U.S. ARMY WRSA-K MUNITIONS TO BE OFFERED
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  RETAIN
                  DODIC                         CC              QOH    TRANSFER  FOR U.S.           ACC                          NOMENCLATURE
                                                                       TO KOREA     USE
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    K143.............................  E...................    99,736    99,736  ........  ROK.................  MINE ANTIPERSONNEL: M18A1 W/ACCESSO
    K143.............................  F...................     9,518     9,518  ........  ROK.................  MINE ANTIPERSONNEL: M18A1 W/ACCESSO
    K143.............................  H...................         6         6  ........  ROK.................  MINE ANTIPERSONNEL: M18A1 W/ACCESSO
    K143.............................  H...................        10        10  ........  DRK.................  MINE ANTIPERSONNEL: M18A1 W/ACCESSO
    K145.............................  E...................    25,580    25,580  ........  ROK.................  MINE ANTIPERSONNEL: M18A1 WITHOUT F
                                                                                ----------
          TOTALS.....................  ....................  ........  ........   134,850  ....................  ...........................................
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Is the transfer of antipersonnel mines from the WRSA-K to
    the ROK permissible under the comprehensive U.S. moratorium on export
    of antipersonnel mines?
        Answer. It is permissible to transfer all the Claymore mines (K143
    and K145) in the War Reserve Stocks for Allies, Korea (WRSA-K) stocks
    to the Republic of Korea (ROK). None of the K092 or K121 mines will be
    included in the negotiations for possible transfer.
        Question. If the DOD plans to transfer antipersonnel mines and
    mine-related equipment to the ROK, please identify the items, quantity,
    cost to the ROK, and the country where they are located at this time.
        Answer. DOD will negotiate to transfer to the Republic of Korea
    (ROK) 109,270 of the K143 Claymore mines and 25,580 of the K145
    Claymore mines. The cost to the ROK is not known at this time. The cost
    will be based on fair market value as offset by concessions to be
    negotiated. All of the War Reserve Stocks for Allies, Korea (WRSA-K)
    Claymore mines are currently located in the ROK.
        Question. If antipersonnel mines are to be transferred, what is the
    timetable?
        Answer. There is no timetable established to transfer any of the
    War Reserve Stocks for Allies, Korea (WRSA-K) items to the Republic of
    Korea (ROK) government. It is likely that all items negotiated for
    transfer will be transferred at the same time. All transfers will be
    completed by December 2008. (Public Law 109-159 requires that all
    transfers authorized under the provision will be completed within three
    years of enactment of the provision.)
        Question. If the DOD does not intend to offer the antipersonnel
    mines in the WRSA-K to the ROK, or if the ROK government does not want
    the mines, how does the DOD intend to dispose of them?
        Answer. If during the negotiations the Republic of Korea (ROK)
    Government indicates it does not want the Claymore mines that are
    available for transfer, then DOD intends to demilitarize them in the
    ROK or retrograde them back to the United States for demilitarization.
        Question. Are any U.S. antipersonnel mines stored in Japan as part
    of WRSA-K? Would the transfer of any such mines out of Japan to the ROK
    be permissible under the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty (Ottawa Convention), to
    which Japan is party?
        Answer. None of the U.S. antipersonnel mines in War Reserve Stocks
    for Allies, Korea (WRSA-K) are stored in Japan. All of the WRSA-K mines
    are stored in the Republic of Korea (ROK).

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Stevens. We'll stand in recess. We'll reconvene on
    Wednesday, May 24, when we're going to start hearing from
    public witnesses regarding the Department of Defense request
    for 2007.
        Thank you very much.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
    those remarks.
        General Pace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., Wednesday, May 17, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    May 24.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Stevens and Inouye.

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye [presiding]. At the direction of the
    chairman of the subcommittee, I will be convening the hearing.
    The first panel consists of Major General William Matz, Jr.,
    United States Army, retired, President of the National
    Association for Uniformed Services; Dr. William J. Strickland,
    Ph.D., American Psychological Association; Lieutenant Colonel
    Paul N. Austin, CRNA, Ph.D., retired, American Association of
    Nurse Anesthetists; fourth, Chris Hahn, Executive Director,
    Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation; and fifth, Captain
    Robert C. Hurd, United States Navy, retired, and PO1 Jessica A.
    Vance, 2006 Naval Sea Cadet of the Year, U.S. Naval Sea Cadet
    Corps. Please come forward.
        General Matz, welcome to the subcommittee, Sir.

    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM M. MATZ, JR., UNITED
                STATES ARMY (RETIRED), PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
                ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES (NAUS)
        General Matz. Well, thank you, sir. Good morning. It is
    very good to see you again.
        In representing the National Association for Uniformed
    Services, it is an honor, sir, for me to testify before such as
    distinguished a veteran as yourself from World War II. And it
    is a privilege to be invited to give our view on key issues
    before your Defense Subcommittee.
        Sir, the annual defense appropriations is one of the most
    critical bills Congress considers. It serves a number of roles.
    First, it provides the wherewithal to insure that our military
    has the resources to meet any threat from abroad. And second
    and just as important, this measure provides for the men and
    women standing today on the frontlines of our Nation's defense.
    And third, the underlying bill can support not only troop
    morale, but can sustain morale by providing the resources
    necessary to help keep our promise to those who served in past
    conflicts to defend America.
        And as a veteran and as a career combat infantryman, it
    gives me great pride to ask you to support the most
    professional and dedicated military in the world. And so in
    this very short time allowed, let me touch on just a few issues
    taken from our more comprehensive written testimony that we
    have provided you.
        Senator Stevens. Your statement will be made part of the
    record.
        General Matz. Sir, quality health care is a very strong
    incentive to make military service a career. I know you are
    aware of that. And at a time when we are relying on our Armed
    Forces, the Defense Department's blueprint for military health
    care raises serious concerns to National Association of
    Uniformed Services (NAUS). This Department of Defense (DOD)
    proposal would result in increases in TRICARE fees and higher
    co-pays for pharmaceuticals for over 3 million retirees under
    the age of 65, and their families. If passed, these proposals
    would double and even triple annual fees for retirees and
    families. The value of the benefit earned by military retirees
    would clearly be certainly diminished.
        We ask the Appropriations subcommittee to work with your
    colleagues to reject these DOD proposed increases, and then,
    sir, to clearly ensure full funding is provided to maintain the
    value of the health care benefit provided these men and women
    who are in the military.
        All we are asking is what is best for our troops. NAUS
    urges you to confirm America's solemn moral obligation to
    support our troops, our retirees, and their families. They have
    kept their promise to our Nation, and we must continue to keep
    our promise to them.
        Clearly, care for our catastrophically wounded troops with
    limb loss is also a matter of national concern. Recently, I had
    the opportunity to visit wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army
    Hospital, and also at the DOD hospitals in both San Antonio and
    Chicago. And sir, I can report that their spirits are very,
    very high, but they need our help.
        Senator Stevens [presiding]. Go on.
        General Matz. Chairman Stevens.
        According to the commander of the Army's Physical
    Disability Agency, which is located at Walter Reed and
    responsible for evaluating whether a soldier is physically able
    to return to active duty, the caseload the agency reviews has
    increased by almost 50 percent since the wars in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. The need is great. The chief of rehabilitation at
    Walter Reed says about 15 percent of the amputees have lost
    more than one limb.
        In order to help meet the challenge, Defense Department
    research must be adequately funded to continue its critical
    focus on treatment of troops surviving these very grievous
    injuries. The research program also requires funding for
    continued development of advanced prostheses that will focus on
    the use of prosthetics with microprocessors that will perform
    more like a natural limb.
        And so accordingly, sir, we encourage the subcommittee to
    ensure that funding for the Defense Department's prosthetic
    research is adequate to support the full range of programs
    needed to meet current and future health challenges facing
    these very seriously wounded veterans.
        It is also our view that providing a seamless transition
    for recently discharged military is especially important for
    servicemembers leaving the military for medical reasons related
    to combat, particularly the most severely injured patients. So
    we call on the subcommittee to ensure adequate funding is
    available to DOD to cover the expenses providing for seamless
    care of our servicemembers.
        Also, NAUS supports a higher--sir?
        Senator Stevens. We have a joint session this morning, so
    we are just going to have to keep moving. We will read your
    accompanying statement.
        General Matz. Okay, sir. Thank you for the opportunity to
    come before you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Major General William M. Matz

        Chairman Stevens, ranking member Inouye, and Members of the
    subcommittee, good morning. It is a pleasure to appear before you today
    to present the views of The National Association for Uniformed Services
    on the 2007 Defense appropriations bill.
        My name is William M. Matz, president of The National Association
    for Uniformed Services (NAUS). And for the record, NAUS has not
    received any Federal grant or contract during the current fiscal year
    or during the previous 2 years in relation to any of the subjects
    discussed today.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, NAUS, founded in 1968, represents all
    ranks, branches and components of uniformed services personnel, their
    spouses and survivors. The association includes all personnel of the
    active, retired, Reserve and National Guard, disabled veterans,
    veterans community and their families. We love our country, believe in
    a strong national defense, support our troops and honor their service.
        Mr. Chairman, as our terrorist enemies remind us, the first and
    most important responsibility of our government is the protection of
    our citizens. As we all know, we are at war. That is why the measure we
    are working on is so very important. It is critical that we provide the
    resources to those who fight for our protection and our way of life. We
    must support our courageous troops. And we must recognize as well that
    we must provide priority funding to keep the promises made to the
    generations of warriors whose sacrifice has paid for today's freedom.
        At the start, I want to express a NAUS concern about the amount of
    our investment in our national defense. Not since post-World War I has
    our provision for our military been so low a percentage--less than 4
    percent--of today's GNP. Resources are required to ensure our military
    is fully staffed, trained, and equipped to achieve victory against our
    enemies. Good-natured ignorance in a time when we face such serious
    threats is not a luxury we can afford. And we depend on leaders in
    Congress with the Nation's support to balance our priorities and ensure
    our defense in a dangerous world.
        Here, I would like to make special mention of the leadership and
    contribution this panel has made in providing the resources and support
    our forces need to complete their mission. Defending the United States
    homeland and the cause of freedom means that the dangers we face must
    be confronted. And it means that the brave men and women who put on the
    uniform must have the very best training, best weapons, best care and
    wherewithal we can give them.
        Mr. Chairman, you and those on this important panel have taken
    every step to give our fighting men and women the funds they need,
    despite allocations we view as insufficient for our total defense
    needs. You have made difficult priority decisions that have helped
    defend America and taken special care of one of our greatest assets,
    namely our men and women in uniform.
        And NAUS is very proud of the job this generation of Americans is
    doing to defend America. Every day they risk their lives, half a world
    away from loved ones. Their daily sacrifice is done in today's
    voluntary force. What they do is vital to our security. And the debt we
    owe them is enormous.
        In this regard, the members of NAUS applaud Congress for the
    actions you have taken over the last several years to close the pay
    gap, provide bonuses for specialized skill sets, and improve the
    overall quality of life for our troops and the means necessary for
    their support.
        Our association does have, however, some concerns about a number of
    matters. Among the major issues that we will address today is the
    provision of a proper health care for the military community and
    recognition of the funding requirements for TRICARE for retired
    military. Also, we will ask for adequate funding to improve the pay for
    members of our armed forces, to protect against expiring bonuses and
    allowances, and to address a number of other challenges including
    TRICARE Reserve Select and the Survivor Benefit Plan.
        We also have a number of related priority concerns such as the
    diagnosis and care of troops returning with Post Traumatic Stress
    Disorder (PTSD), the need for enhanced priority in the area of
    prosthetics research, and providing improved seamless transition for
    returning troops between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In addition, we would like to
    ensure that adequate funds are provided to defeat injuries from the
    enemy's use of Improvised Explosive Devices.

                     MILITARY QUALITY OF LIFE: HEALTH CARE

        Quality health care is a strong incentive to make military service
    a career. The Defense blueprint for military healthcare raises serious
    concern to NAUS. DOD recommends saving $735 million through sharp
    increases in TRICARE fees and higher copays for pharmaceuticals for 3.1
    million retirees under age 65 and their families.
        To achieve these savings, Defense officials want to triple annual
    enrollment fees for TRICARE Prime by October 2007 for officers, to $700
    from $230 a year for individuals and to $1,400 from $460 per year for
    families. For retired E-6 and below, the fee would jump nearly 50
    percent, to $325/$650 from $230/$460. And for E-7 and above, the jump
    would more than double to $475/$950 from $230/$460.
        The defense budget also requests the establishment of a TRICARE
    Standard enrollment fee and an increase in the annual amount of
    deductible charges paid by retirees using standard coverage. The
    standard beneficiary already pays a 25 percent cost share (and an added
    15 percent for non-participating providers). Should Congress approve
    the DOD request to increase deductibles and initiate an annual fee, the
    value of the benefit earned by military retirees using standard would
    be greatly diminished.
        DOD officials also recommend changes in TRICARE retail pharmacy
    copayments. The plan calls for reducing copays for mail order generic
    prescriptions to $0 (zero) from $3; and increasing copays for retail
    generic drugs to $5 from $3 and for retail brand drugs to $15 from $9.
    The copayment for non-formulary prescriptions would remain at $22.
        The assertion behind the proposals is to have working-age retirees
    and family members pay a larger share of TRICARE costs or use civilian
    health plans offered by employers. In recent testimony before your
    subcommittee, Dr. Winkenwerder indicated that the plan would force more
    than 100,000 retirees to leave their TRICARE coverage due to added
    costs.
        NAUS asks the appropriations panel to work with your colleagues to
    reject the DOD proposed increases; and then ensure full funding is
    provided to maintain the value of the healthcare benefit provided those
    men and women willing to undergo the hardships of a military career.
        When world events are in constant change and instability and
    uncertainty are the rule, we are concerned that the current 302(b)
    allocation given this subcommittee may not fully fill the gap from the
    lost ``revenue'' of the Pentagon's proposed TRICARE fees, which the
    administration estimated would bring in $735 million. We cannot believe
    this astonishing situation is something our elected Members of Congress
    would allow to go unfilled. Generations of us have fought to build a
    better Nation and now we are told that our health care benefits cost
    too much. Frankly, that kind of thinking can get America into trouble.
    You cannot recruit future military if the word gets out that America
    does not keep the promises made to those who served her.
        We urge the subcommittee to fill this funding gap. And we urge
    Congress to strip DOD's authority to raise certain TRICARE fees and
    copays unilaterally without partnership or even consultation with our
    elected Congress.
        NAUS firmly believes that the fiscal year 2001 landmark legislation
    establishing TRICARE providing new pharmacy and medical benefits to
    military retirees and their families represents an irreplaceable
    national investment, critical to the Nation and its warriors. The
    provision of quality, timely care is considered one of the most
    important benefits afforded the career military. What you have done
    reflects the commitment of a nation, and it deserves your wholehearted
    support.
        We urge the subcommittee to take the actions necessary for honoring
    our obligation to those men and women who have worn the Nation's
    military uniform. Clearly, when DOD does not receive adequate funding,
    it is forced to look toward benefits as a source of potential
    ``revenue,'' and this should not be allowed to occur.
        All we are asking is what is best for our service men and women and
    those who have given a career to armed service. NAUS urges you to
    confirm America's solemn, moral obligation to support our troops, their
    families, military retirees, and theirs. They have kept their promise
    to our Nation, and now it's time for us to keep our promise to them.

                         MILITARY QUALITY OF LIFE, PAY

        For fiscal year 2007, the administration recommends a 2.2 percent
    across-the-board pay increase for members of the Armed Forces. While
    this is the lowest raise provided since 1994, the increase, according
    to the Pentagon, is designed to keep military pay in line with civilian
    wage growth. The Defense proposal also calls for an unspecified mid-
    year targeted raise. NAUS trusts the panel will ensure that these
    targeted raises are aimed to reward certain necessary skills and aim as
    well at E-7s, E-8s and E-9s and warrant officers to help retention of
    experience.
        Congress and the administration have done a good job over the
    recent past to narrow the gap between civilian-sector and military pay.
    The gap, which was as great as 14 percent in the late 1990s, has been
    reduced to nearly 4.3 percent with the January 2006 pay increase.
        The pay differential is important to recruitment. As an example, an
    electronic technician is currently paid approximately 3.5 to 4 percent
    less than his counterpart in the private sector. A few years ago, the
    differential was as much as 12 percent. We've got to get it down, and
    we have made significant strides. But we can do better and we should.
        To attract high-quality personnel, we urge the appropriations panel
    to never lose sight of the fact that our DOD manpower policy needs a
    compensation package that is reasonable and competitive. Bonuses have
    role in this area. Bonuses for instance can pull people into special
    jobs that help supply our manpower for critical assets, and they can
    also entice ``old hands'' to come back into the game with their skills.
        Understanding that congressional leaders have under consideration
    provisions to raise basic pay for all individuals in the uniformed
    services by 2.7 percent, NAUS asks you to do all you can to ensure in
    this tight budget situation that any increase above the standard
    calculation accrue solely to those in the military rather than the
    civilian federal employees. The frank truth is that our Armed Forces
    face far greater risks and dangers than our civilian workforce. And
    though we may never be able to fully compensate these brave men and
    women for being in harm's way, we should clearly recognize the risks
    they face and make every effort to appropriately compensate them for
    the job they do.

                      MILITARY QUALITY OF LIFE, ALLOWANCES

        NAUS strongly supports revised housing standards within the Basic
    Allowance for Housing (BAH). We are most grateful for the congressional
    actions reducing out-of-pocket housing expenses for servicemembers over
    the last several years. Despite the many advances made, many enlisted
    personnel continue to face steep challenge in providing themselves and
    their families with affordable off-base housing and utility expenses.
    BAH provisions must ensure that rates keep pace with housing costs in
    communities where military members serve and reside. Efforts to better
    align actual housing rates can reduce unnecessary stress and help those
    who serve better focus on the job at hand, rather than the struggle
    with meeting housing costs for their families.
        NAUS urges the subcommittee to provide adequate funding for
    military construction and family housing accounts used by DOD to
    provide our servicemembers and their families quality housing. The
    funds for base allowance and housing should ensure that those serving
    our country are able to afford to live in quality housing whether on or
    off the base. The current program to upgrade military housing by
    privatizing defense housing stock is working well. We encourage
    continued oversight in this area to ensure joint military-developer
    activity continues to improve housing options. Clearly, we need to be
    particularly alert to this challenge as we implement BRAC and related
    rebasing changes.
        NAUS also asks special provision be granted the National Guard and
    Reserve for planning and design in the upgrade of facilities. Since the
    terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our Guardsmen and Reservists
    have witnessed an upward spiral in the rate of deployment and
    mobilization. The mission has clearly changed, and we must recognize
    they account for an increasing role in our national defense and
    homeland security responsibilities. The challenge to help them keep
    pace is an obligation we owe for their vital service.

                             SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN

        There are two primary ways in which survivors of military personnel
    receive military related benefits: The Survivor Benefits Plan (SBP),
    which is based on time and service; and, Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation (DIC), which provides a flat monthly payment after a
    service-connected death.
        Many military members and retirees have paid for SBP and have the
    most obvious of expectations to receive what was paid for.
    Surprisingly, that's not what happens. Under current law, SBP is
    reduced one dollar for each dollar received under DIC. A dollar is
    taken from one benefit for every dollar a survivor receives in the
    other.
        Survivors of retirees, upon eligibility for DIC, lose a majority--
    or all too often--the entire amount of their monthly SBP annuity.
        In addition, military retirees age 70 and older, who have paid into
    the plan for more than 30-years, are required to continue to pay until
    October 2008. Military retirees who enrolled for SBP at the initial
    enrollment date in 1972 will this year be paying premiums for 34 years
    and by 2008 36 years.
        NAUS encourages members of the panel to provide financing to
    correct this unfair situation. Allow military survivors the benefit
    their loved one paid for their quality of life. And press to see that
    retirees age 70 or more who have paid into SBP are no longer required
    to pay premiums.

       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, SEAMLESS TRANSITION BETWEEN THE DOD AND VA

        The President's Task Force (PTF) to Improve Health Care Delivery
    for Our Nation's Veterans report, released in May 2003 regarding
    transition of soldiers to veteran status, stated, ``timely access to
    the full range of benefits earned by their service to the country is an
    obligation that deserves the attention of both VA and DOD.'' NAUS
    agrees with this assertion and believes that good communication between
    the two Departments means our government can better identify, locate
    and follow up with injured servicemembers separated from the military.
        It is our view that providing a seamless transition for recently
    discharged military is especially important for servicemembers leaving
    the military for medical reasons related to combat, particularly for
    the most severely injured patients.
        Most important in the calculus of a seamless transition is the
    capacity to share information at the earliest possible moment prior to
    separation or discharge. It is essential that surprises be reduced to a
    minimum to ensure that all troops receive timely, quality health care
    and other benefits earned in military service.
        To improve DOD/VA exchange, the hand-off should include a detailed
    history of care provided and an assessment of what each patient may
    require in the future, including mental health services. No veteran
    leaving military service should fall through the bureaucratic cracks.
        Another area that would enhance a seamless transition for our
    uniformed services is the further expansion of single-stop separation
    physical examinations. A servicemember takes a physical exam when he is
    discharged. While progress is being made in this area, we recommend
    expanding the delivery at discharge (BDD) program to all discharge
    locations in making determination of appropriate benefits before
    separation. This will allow more disabled veterans to receive their
    service-connected benefits sooner.
        NAUS compliments DOD and VA for following through on establishing
    benefits representatives at military hospitals. This is an important
    step and can often reduce the amount of frustration inherent in the
    separation process for service members and their families.
        NAUS calls on the subcommittee to ensure adequate funding is
    available to DOD and VA to cover the expenses of providing for these
    measures. Taking care of veterans is a national obligation, and doing
    it right sends a strong signal to those currently in military service
    as well as to those thinking about joining the military.

                      DEFENSE DEPARTMENT FORCE PROTECTION

        NAUS urges the subcommittee to provide adequate funding to rapidly
    deploy and acquire the full range of force protection capabilities for
    deployed forces. This would include resources for up-armored high
    mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles and add-on ballistic protection
    to provide force protection for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,
    ensure up-activity for joint research and treatment effort to treat
    combat blast injuries resulting from improvised explosive devices
    (IEDs), rocket propelled grenades, and other attacks; and facilitate
    the early deployment of new technology, equipment, and tactics to
    counter the threat of IEDs.
        We ask special consideration be given to counter IEDs, defined as
    makeshift or ``homemade'' bombs, often used by enemy forces to destroy
    military convoys and currently the leading cause of casualties to
    troops deployed in Iraq. These devices are the weapon of choice and,
    unfortunately, a very efficient weapon used by our enemy. The Joint
    Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) is established
    to coordinate efforts that would help eliminate the threat posed by
    these IEDs. We urge efforts to advance investment in technology to
    counteract radio-controlled devices used to detonate these killers.
    Maintaining support is required to stay ahead of the changing enemy and
    to decrease casualties caused by IEDs.

                 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM--TRICARE RESERVE SELECT

        Mr. Chairman, another area that requires attention is Reservist
    participation in TRICARE. As we are all aware, National Guard and
    Reserve personnel have seen an upward spiral of mobilization and
    deployment since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The
    mission has changed and with it our reliance on these forces has risen.
    Congress has recognized these changes and begun to update and upgrade
    protections and benefits for those called away from family, home and
    employment to active duty. We urge your commitment to these troops to
    ensure that the long overdue changes made in the provision of their
    heath care and related benefits is adequately resourced. We are one
    force, all bearing a full share of the load.

                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

        Clearly, care for our troops with limb loss is a matter of national
    concern. The global war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan has
    produced wounded soldiers with multiple amputations and limb loss who
    in previous conflicts would have died from their injuries. Improved
    body armor and better advances in battlefield medicine reduce the
    number of fatalities, however injured soldiers are coming back
    oftentimes with severe, devastating physical losses.
        As of December 31, 2005, 16,329 troops had been wounded but
    survived their injuries, according to U.S. Defense Department figures.
    And according to Col. Daniel Garvey, USA, deputy commander of the U.S.
    Army Physical Disability Agency, located at Walter Reed and responsible
    for evaluating whether a soldier is physically able to return to active
    duty, the caseload the agency reviews has increased by almost 50
    percent since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began.
        The need is great. Lt. Col. Paul Pasquina, chief of physical
    medicine and rehabilitation at Walter Reed, says about 15 percent of
    the amputees at Walter Reed have lost more than one limb. And according
    to Lt. Col. Jeffrey Gambel, chief of the amputee clinic, about one-
    third of the amputations done on recently injured service members have
    involved upper extremities, because of the types of munitions used by
    the enemy.
        In order to help meet the challenge, Defense Department research
    must be adequately funded to continue its intent on treatment of troops
    surviving this war with grievous injuries. The research program also
    requires funding for continued development of advanced prosthesis that
    will focus on the use of prosthetics with microprocessors that will
    perform more like the natural limb.
        NAUS encourages the subcommittee to ensure that funding for Defense
    Department's prosthetic research is adequate to support the full range
    of programs needed to meet current and future health challenges facing
    wounded veterans. To meet the situation, the subcommittee needs to
    focus a substantial, dedicated funding stream on Defense Department
    research to address the care needs of a growing number of casualties
    who require specialized treatment and rehabilitation that result from
    their armed service.
        We would also like to see better coordination between the
    Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs in the development of prosthetics that
    are readily adaptable to aid amputees.
        NAUS looks forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to see that
    priority is given to care for these brave men and women who in defense
    of freedom and our way of life were seriously wounded.
     department on veterans affairs, post traumatic stress disorder (ptsd)
        NAUS supports a higher priority on Defense Department care of
    troops demonstrating symptoms of mental health disorders and treatment
    for PTSD.
        The mental condition known as PTSD has been well known for over 100
    years under an assortment of different names. For example more than 50
    years ago, Army psychiatrists reported, ``That each moment of combat
    imposes a strain so great that psychiatric casualties are as inevitable
    as gunshot and shrapnel wounds in warfare.''
        According to a recent Government Accountability Office draft
    report, nearly four in five service members returning from the wars in
    Iraq and Afghanistan who were found to be at risk for PTSD were never
    referred for further help. The Defense Department has not explained why
    some troops are referred for help and some are not.
        Pre-deployment and post-deployment medicine is very important. Our
    legacy of the Gulf War demonstrates the concept that we need to
    understand the health of our service members as a continuum, from pre-
    to post-deployment. However, not only does DOD need programs to assess
    a service member's medical status and a method to evaluate their health
    during time in war, it also needs to administer treatment quickly and
    effectively to mitigate injuries and save lives.
        PTSD is a serious psychiatric disorder. While the government has
    demonstrated over the past several years a higher level of attention to
    those military personnel who exhibit PTSD symptoms, more should be done
    to assist servicemembers found to be at risk.
        NAUS applauds the extent of help provided by the Defense
    Department, however we encourage that more resources be made available
    to assist. Early recognition of the symptoms and proactive programs are
    essential to help many of those who must deal with the debilitating
    effects of mental injuries, as inevitable in combat as gunshot and
    shrapnel wounds.
        NAUS encourages the Members of the subcommittee to provide for
    these funds and to closely monitor their expenditure to see they are
    not redirected to other areas of defense spending.
        While Defense Department officials and congressional leaders have
    taken important steps to advance better care for those with mental
    health problems, many challenges still remain. NAUS urges the
    development of a consistent, seamless, and working approach that allows
    DOD to screen returning service members and provide more effective
    early intervention that leads to healing.

                  MILITARY QUALITY OF LIFE, CONCURRENT RECEIPT

        Since the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act
    (NDAA) authorized a special compensation for certain military retirees
    injured in combat, Congress has advanced NAUS-supported concurrent
    receipt to include benefits to most military retirees with combat
    related disabilities and personnel with service-connected VA disability
    ratings of 50 percent or higher.
        In last year's NDAA, Congress accelerated the phase in of
    concurrent receipt for individuals rated 100 percent disabled as a
    result of individual unemployability. NAUS urges members to press
    legislation for full and complete concurrent receipt to all disabled
    retirees, including those individuals medically discharged from service
    prior to achieving 20 years of service.
        NAUS would also like to see the availability of concurrent receipt
    to all those forced into retirement with less than 20 years service.
    Currently combat related special compensation is denied to those
    warriors who were so severely wounded they couldn't serve out their
    full careers. Retired short of their 20-years, through no fault of
    their own, they continue to pay for their battle wounds. We urge
    members of this panel to encourage Congress to care for these troops
    and never forget the price they paid for service to country.

                          ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME

        NAUS is pleased to note the subcommittee's continued interest in
    providing funds for the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH). As you
    know, home residents were evacuated for care and treatment to the
    Washington, DC, retirement home the day after Hurricane Katrina struck
    and damaged the facility at Gulfport, Mississippi. While the District
    of Columbia facility is currently undergoing transformation to absorb
    the change, we are seriously concerned about the future of the Gulfport
    home. We urge the subcommittee to provide adequate funding to help
    alleviate the strains on the Washington home. And we urge funding be
    set aside to do the planning and design work to rebuild the Gulfport
    home.
        NAUS also asks the subcommittee to investigate administration plans
    to sell great portions of the Washington AFRH to developers. The AFRH
    home is a historic national treasure, and we recommend that Congress
    find an alternate means to continue providing a residence for and
    quality-of-life support to these deserving veterans without turning
    most of this pristine campus over to developers.

              UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES

        As you know, the Uniformed Services University of the Health
    Sciences (USUHS) is the Nation's Federal school of medicine and
    graduate school of nursing. The medical students are all active-duty
    uniformed officers in the Army, Navy, Air Force and U.S. Public Health
    Service who are being educated to deal with wartime casualties,
    national disasters, emerging diseases and other public health
    emergencies.
        NAUS supports the USUHS and requests adequate funding be provided
    to ensure continued accredited training, especially in the area of
    chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear response. In this
    regard, it is our understanding that USUHS requires funding for
    training and educational focus on biological threats and incidents for
    military, civilian, uniformed first responders and healthcare providers
    across the Nation.

                    JOINT POW/MIA ACCOUNTING COMMAND (JPAC)

        We also want the fullest accounting of our missing servicemen and
    ask for your support in DOD dedicated efforts to find and identify
    remains. It is a duty we owe to the families of those still missing as
    well as to those who served or who currently serve. And as President
    Bush said, ``It is a signal that those who wear our country's military
    uniform will never be abandoned.''
        In this regard, it is our understanding that the priority has been
    lowered for the mission of the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC).
    DOD funding has been redirected to other activities and POW/MIA
    operations in South East Asia have been canceled or scaled back. We
    request you look into this report and ensure that the $65 million
    required to support the JPAC mission for fiscal year 2007 is fully
    funded and allocated as needed.

                    APPRECIATION FOR OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY

        As a staunch advocate for our uniformed service men and women, NAUS
    recognizes that these brave men and women did not fail us in their
    service to country, and we, in turn, must not fail them in providing
    the benefits and services they earned through honorable military
    service.
        Mr. Chairman, NAUS appreciates the subcommittee's hard work. We ask
    that you continue to work in good faith to put the dollars where they
    are most needed: in strengthening our national defense, ensuring troop
    protection, compensating those who serve, providing for DOD medical
    services including TRICARE, and building adequate housing for military
    troops and their families, and in the related defense matters discussed
    today. These are some of our Nation's highest priority needs and we ask
    that they be given the level of attention they deserve.
        NAUS is confident you will take special care of our Nation's
    greatest assets: the men and women who serve and have served in
    uniform. We are proud of the service they give to America every day.
    They are vital to our defense and national security. The price we pay
    as a Nation for their earned benefits is a continuing cost of war, and
    it will never cost more or equal the value of their service.
        We thank you for your efforts, your hard work. And we look forward
    to working with you to ensure we continue to provide sufficient
    resources to protect the earned benefits for those giving military
    service to America every day.
        Again, NAUS deeply appreciates the opportunity to present the
    association's views on the issues before the Defense Appropriations
    Subcommittee.

        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Dr. William Strickland
    of the American Psychological Association. We do apologize for
    the timeframe here. We are going to have a vote at 9:30, and
    then a joint session--two votes at 9:30.
        Thank you, Dr. Strickland.

    STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM J. STRICKLAND, Ph.D., VICE
                PRESIDENT, HUMAN RESOURCES RESEARCH
                ORGANIZATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
                PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
        Dr. Strickland. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, I'm Bill
    Strickland. I'm the former Director of Human Resources Research
    for the Air Force, and I'm currently the Vice President at the
    Human Resources Research Organization. I want to thank you for
    the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the American
    Psychological Association, or APA, a scientific and
    professional organization of more than 150,000 psychologists
    and affiliates.
        Although I'm sure you're both aware of the large number of
    psychologists providing clinical services to our military
    members and families here and abroad, you may be less familiar
    with the extraordinary range of research conducted by
    psychological scientists within DOD. Behavioral researchers at
    work on issues critical to national defense with support from
    the Army Research Institute, and Army Research Laboratory, the
    Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Research Laboratory,
    and smaller, human systems research programs in the office of
    the Secretary of Defense, Defense Advanced Research Projects
    Agency (DARPA), the Marine Corps, and Special Operations
    Command.
        In fiscal year 2006, the administration requested $10.52
    billion for defense, science, and technology; a huge cut from
    fiscal year 2005. Congressional appropriators in turn provided
    a significant increase to a total of $13.24 billion. For fiscal
    year 2007, the President's budget request of the $11.08 billion
    for defense service and technology (S&T) again falls short. The
    request for basic and applied defense research represents a
    16.3 percent decrease from the enacted fiscal year 2006 level.
    We ask the Appropriations subcommittee's help in restoring
    critical defense research funding. APA joins the coalition for
    national security research, a group of over 40 scientific
    associations and universities, in urging the subcommittee to
    reverse this cut.
        APA requests a total of $13.4 billion for defense S&T. This
    would maintain DOD spending on applied 6.2 and 6.3 research,
    and support a 10 percent increase in 6.1 research in fiscal
    year 2007, as recommended in the National Academy of Science's
    report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''
        The total spending on behavioral and cognitive research; in
    other words, human-centered research, within DOD also has
    declined in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget. In
    addition, the Senate Armed Services Committee has proposed
    cutting human-centered research in fiscal year 2007 in the
    fiscal year 2007 defense authorization. As one example, the
    authorizers recommend cutting by one-third a Navy research
    program on human factors.
        Behavioral and cognitive research in the broad categories
    of personnel, training, and later development; warfighter
    protection, sustainment, and physical performance; system
    interfaces and cognitive processing; and intelligence-related
    processes such as detection of deception; is absolutely
    critical to national security. And it is critical that DOD
    sponsor this research directly. As DOD noted in its own report
    to the Senate Appropriations Committee, quote: ``Military
    knowledge needs are not sufficiently like the needs of the
    private sector that retooling behavioral, cognitive, and social
    science research carried out for other purposes can be expected
    to substitute for service-supported research, development,
    testing, and evaluation. Our choice, therefore, is between
    paying for it ourselves and not having it,'' close quote.
        In today's environment, who would knowingly choose to live
    without research that enhances the recruiting, selection,
    training, and retaining of that fighting force required to
    operate, maintain, and support the advanced weapons systems we
    are supporting today? We urge you to support the men and women
    on the frontlines by reversing another round of dramatic,
    detrimental cuts to both the overall defense S&T account, and
    more specifically, to the human-oriented research programs
    within the military laboratories.
        Thank you for your time this morning.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We appreciate that.
    We are quite worried about those numbers. We will do our best.
        Dr. Strickland. Thank you, sir.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of William J. Strickland

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, I'm Dr. Bill
    Strickland, former director of Human Resources Research for the Air
    Force and current vice president of the Human Resources Research
    Organization. I am submitting testimony on behalf of the American
    Psychological Association (APA), a scientific and professional
    organization of more than 150,000 psychologists and affiliates.
        Although I am sure you are aware of the large number of
    psychologists providing clinical services to our military members here
    and abroad, you may be less familiar with the extraordinary range of
    research conducted by psychological scientists within the Department of
    Defense (DOD). Our behavioral researchers work on issues critical to
    national defense, with support from the Army Research Institute (ARI)
    and Army Research Laboratory (ARL); the Office of Naval Research (ONR);
    the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), and additional, smaller human
    systems research programs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
    the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Marine
    Corps, and the Special Operations Command.
        I would first like to address the fiscal year 2007 human-centered
    research budgets for the military laboratories and programs within the
    context of the larger DOD Science and Technology (S&T) budget, and
    close by mentioning a tremendous new Defense Graduate Psychology
    Education program to better train military and civilian psychologists
    who provide clinical care to our military personnel and their families.

                       DOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET

        The President's budget request for basic and applied research at
    DOD in fiscal year 2007 is $11.08 billion, a 16.3 percent decrease from
    the enacted fiscal year 2006 level of $13.24 billion. APA joins the
    Coalition for National Security Research (CNSR), a group of over 40
    scientific associations and universities, in urging the subcommittee to
    reverse this cut. APA requests a total of $13.40 billion for Defense
    S&T. This would maintain DOD spending on applied (6.2 and 6.3 level)
    research and support a 10 percent increase for basic (6.1) defense
    research in fiscal year 2007, as recommended in the National Academies
    report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm''.
        As our Nation rises to meet the challenges of current engagements
    in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other asymmetric threats and
    increased demand for homeland defense and infrastructure protection,
    enhanced battlespace awareness and warfighter protection are absolutely
    critical. Our ability to both foresee and immediately adapt to changing
    security environments will only become more vital over the next several
    decades. Accordingly, DOD must support basic Science and Technology
    (S&T) research on both the near-term readiness and modernization needs
    of the department and on the long-term future needs of the warfighter.
        In fiscal year 2006, the administration requested $10.52 billion
    for defense S&T, a huge cut from fiscal year 2005. Congressional
    appropriators in turn provided a significant increase, for a total of
    $13.24 billion. For fiscal year 2007, the President's budget request of
    $11.08 billion for DOD S&T again falls short, and we ask for the
    Appropriations Subcommittee's help in restoring critical defense
    research funding.
        Despite substantial appreciation for the importance of DOD S&T
    programs on Capitol Hill, and within independent defense science
    organizations such as the Defense Science Board (DSB), total research
    within DOD has remained essentially flat in constant dollars over the
    last few decades. This poses a very real threat to America's ability to
    maintain its competitive edge at a time when we can least afford it.
    APA, CNSR and our colleagues within the science and defense communities
    recommend increasing the 6.1 basic research account within DOD S&T by
    10 percent and at a minimum, maintaining the current funding levels for
    the 6.2 and 6.3 applied research programs in order to maintain global
    superiority in an ever-changing national security environment.

          BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH WITHIN THE MILITARY SERVICE LABS AND DOD

        The Department of Defense met a previous Senate Appropriations
    Committee mandate by producing its report on ``Behavioral, Cognitive
    and Social Science Research in the Military''. The Senate requested
    this evaluation due to concern over the continuing erosion of DOD's
    support for research on individual and group performance, leadership,
    communication, human-machine interfaces, and decision-making. In
    responding to the committee's request, the Department found that ``the
    requirements for maintaining strong DOD support for behavioral,
    cognitive and social science research capability are compelling'' and
    that ``this area of military research has historically been extremely
    productive'' with ``particularly high'' return on investment and ``high
    operational impact.''
        Within DOD, the majority of behavioral, cognitive and social
    science is funded through the Army Research Institute (ARI) and Army
    Research Laboratory (ARL); the Office of Naval Research (ONR); and the
    Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). These military service
    laboratories provide a stable, mission-oriented focus for science,
    conducting and sponsoring basic (6.1), applied/exploratory development
    (6.2) and advanced development (6.3) research. These three levels of
    research are roughly parallel to the military's need to win a current
    war (through products in advanced development) while concurrently
    preparing for the next war (with technology ``in the works'') and the
    war after next (by taking advantage of ideas emerging from basic
    research). All of the services fund human-related research in the broad
    categories of personnel, training and leader development; warfighter
    protection, sustainment and physical performance; and system interfaces
    and cognitive processing.
        Behavioral and cognitive research programs eliminated from the
    mission labs due to cuts or flat funding are extremely unlikely to be
    picked up by industry, which focuses on short-term, profit-driven
    product development. Once the expertise is gone, there is absolutely no
    way to ``catch up'' when defense mission needs for critical human-
    oriented research develop. As DOD noted in its own report to the Senate
    Appropriations Committee:

        ``Military knowledge needs are not sufficiently like the needs of
    the private sector that retooling behavioral, cognitive and social
    science research carried out for other purposes can be expected to
    substitute for service-supported research, development, testing, and
    evaluation . . . our choice, therefore, is between paying for it
    ourselves and not having it.''

        The following are brief descriptions of important behavioral
    research funded by the military research laboratories:

     ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES (ARI)
                       AND ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY (ARL)

        ARI works to build the ultimate smart weapon: the American soldier.
    ARI was established to conduct personnel and behavioral research on
    such topics as minority and general recruitment; personnel testing and
    evaluation; training and retraining; and attrition. ARI is the focal
    point and principal source of expertise for all the military services
    in leadership research, an area especially critical to the success of
    the military as future war-fighting and peace-keeping missions demand
    more rapid adaptation to changing conditions, more skill diversity in
    units, increased information-processing from multiple sources, and
    increased interaction with semi-autonomous systems. Behavioral
    scientists within ARI are working to help the Armed Forces better
    identify, nurture and train leaders.
        Another line of research at ARI focuses on optimizing cognitive
    readiness under combat conditions, by developing methods to predict and
    mitigate the effects of stressors (such as information load and
    uncertainty, workload, social isolation, fatigue, and danger) on
    performance. As the Army moves towards its goal of becoming the
    Objective Force (or the Army of the future: lighter, faster and more
    mobile), psychological researchers will play a vital role in helping
    maximize soldier performance through an understanding of cognitive,
    perceptual and social factors.
        ARL's Human Research & Engineering Directorate sponsors basic and
    applied research in the area of human factors, with the goal of
    optimizing soldiers' interactions with Army systems. Specific
    behavioral research projects focus on the development of intelligent
    decision aids, control/display/workstation design, simulation and human
    modeling, and human control of automated systems.

                         OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH (ONR)

        The Cognitive and Neural Sciences Division (CNS) of ONR supports
    research to increase the understanding of complex cognitive skills in
    humans; aid in the development and improvement of machine vision;
    improve human factors engineering in new technologies; and advance the
    design of robotics systems. An example of CNS-supported research is the
    division's long-term investment in artificial intelligence research.
    This research has led to many useful products, including software that
    enables the use of ``embedded training.'' Many of the Navy's
    operational tasks, such as recognizing and responding to threats,
    require complex interactions with sophisticated, computer-based
    systems. Embedded training allows shipboard personnel to develop and
    refine critical skills by practicing simulated exercises on their own
    workstations. Once developed, embedded training software can be loaded
    onto specified computer systems and delivered wherever and however it
    is needed.

                      AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY (AFRL)

        Within AFRL, Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)
    behavioral scientists are responsible for basic research on manpower,
    personnel, training and crew technology. The AFRL Human Effectiveness
    Directorate is responsible for more applied research relevant to an
    enormous number of acknowledged Air Force mission needs ranging from
    weapons design, to improvements in simulator technology, to improving
    crew survivability in combat, to faster, more powerful and less
    expensive training regimens.
        As a result of previous cuts to the Air Force behavioral research
    budget, the world's premier organization devoted to personnel selection
    and classification (formerly housed at Brooks Air Force Base) no longer
    exists. This has a direct, negative impact on the Air Force's and other
    services' ability to efficiently identify and assign personnel
    (especially pilots). Similarly, reductions in support for applied
    research in human factors have resulted in an inability to fully
    enhance human factors modeling capabilities, which are essential for
    determining human-system requirements early in system concept
    development, when the most impact can be made in terms of manpower and
    cost savings. For example, although engineers know how to build cockpit
    display systems and night goggles so that they are structurally sound,
    psychologists know how to design them so that people can use them
    safely and effectively.

             DEFENSE GRADUATE PSYCHOLOGY EDUCATION PROGRAM (D-GPE)

        Military psychologists also serve in roles other than researchers
    within the DOD system--many provide direct clinical care (mental and
    behavioral health services) to military personnel and their families
    and are responsible for training the next generation of military
    psychologists. The Defense Graduate Psychology Education (D-GPE)
    Program was launched in fiscal year 2006 to better train both military
    and civilian psychologists in providing this care, and APA requests $6
    million for D-GPE in fiscal year 2007. The foci will be on mental
    health for the severely medically injured (including those with
    traumatic brain injury and amputations), trauma and resilience for
    those suffering from depression and post traumatic stress disorder, and
    post-deployment reintegration and adjustment.
        The D-GPE program includes a tri-service Center for Deployment
    Psychology (CDP) at the Uniformed Services University of the Health
    Sciences (USUHS) with a board of directors from the Army, Air Force,
    and Navy Psychology Departments. A website will be developed for
    servicemembers, veterans and their families seeking assistance for
    mental health related issues, including contact information for
    psychologists in their geographic areas. Furthermore, curriculum will
    be developed designed to meet the specific needs of returning military
    personnel and their families, on topics including trauma and
    resilience. In the second year, Postdoctoral Fellows will be added to
    the clinical teaching faculty at USUHS and a research component would
    be initiated.

                                    SUMMARY

        On behalf of APA, I would like to express my appreciation for this
    opportunity to present testimony before the subcommittee. Clearly,
    psychological scientists address a broad range of important issues and
    problems vital to our national security, with expertise in
    understanding and optimizing cognitive functioning, perceptual
    awareness, complex decision-making, stress resilience, recruitment and
    retention, and human-systems interactions. We urge you to support the
    men and women on the front lines by reversing another round of
    dramatic, detrimental cuts to the overall defense S&T account and the
    human-oriented research projects within the military laboratories. We
    also urge you to support military personnel and their families even
    more directly by providing funds for the new D-GPE program.
        Below is suggested appropriations report language for fiscal year
    2007 which would encourage the Department of Defense to fully fund its
    behavioral research programs within the military laboratories:

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

        Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:
        Behavioral Research in the Military Service Laboratories.-- The
    Committee notes the increased demands on our military personnel,
    including high operational tempo, leadership and training challenges,
    new and ever-changing stresses on decision-making and cognitive
    readiness, and complex human-technology interactions. To help address
    these issues vital to our national security, the committee has provided
    increased funding to reverse cuts to basic and applied psychological
    research through the military research laboratories: the Air Force
    Office of Scientific Research and Air Force Research Laboratory; the
    Army Research Institute and Army Research Laboratory; and the Office of
    Naval Research.

        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Chris Hahn, executive
    director of Mesothelioma--I cannot pronounce that--pardon me,
    what's this? Lieutenant Colonel Paul Austin. Pardon me.
        Colonel Austin. Good morning, Chairman Stevens.
        Senator Stevens. Good morning.
        Colonel Austin. Hello, ranking member Inouye.

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL PAUL N. AUSTIN,
                CERTIFIED REGISTERED NURSE ANESTHETIST,
                Ph.D., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
                ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS (AANA)
        Colonel Austin. It is an honor and pleasure to provide
    testimony on behalf of the American Association of Nurse
    Anesthetists. My name is Dr. Paul Austin. I'm a certified
    registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA), and I retired last year
    from the U.S. Air Force after 24 years of proudly serving my
    country. For most of this time I served as a nurse anesthesia
    educator, serving as the director of the Air Force and
    Uniformed Services University nurse anesthesia programs, as
    well as the chief consultant to the Air Force Surgeon General
    for nurse anesthesia.
        The AANA is a professional organization representing 34,000
    CRNAs in the United States, including approximately 483 active
    duty and 790 reserve military CRNAs. CRNAs participate in about
    65 percent of the anesthetics given to patients each year in
    the United States. Nurse anesthetists are also the sole
    anesthesia providers in more than two-thirds of rural hospitals
    assuring access to surgical, obstetrical, and other health care
    services. Over 364 nurse anesthetists have been deployed to the
    Middle East in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
    Enduring Freedom.
        Military CRNAs are often the sole anesthesia providers at
    certain facilities both at home and forward deployed. For
    example, Army CRNA Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Schoneboom,
    Director of the Uniformed Services Nurse Anesthesia Program, is
    currently deployed as a nurse anesthetist and a detachment
    commander for the Fourteenth Combat Surgical Hospital at
    Salerno forward operating base in Afghanistan.
        In addition, military CRNAs are called upon to assist with
    humanitarian efforts, both at the home front and abroad, and
    this subcommittee must ensure that we retain and recruit CRNAs
    now and in the future to serve in these military overseas
    deployments and humanitarian efforts, and to ensure the maximum
    readiness of America's armed services.
        Today, maintaining adequate numbers of active duty CRNAs is
    of the most importance to the Department of Defense to meet its
    military medical readiness mission. For several years, the
    number of CRNAs serving in active duty has fallen short of the
    number authorized by DOD. This is complicated by the strong
    demand for CRNAs, both in the public and private sectors. This
    considerable gap between civilian and military pay was
    addressed in the fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Act,
    with an incentive special pay, or ISP increase from $15,000 to
    $50,000.
        Earlier this month, the three services' Nurse Corps leaders
    testified before this subcommittee that there is an active
    effort to work with the Surgeons General to evaluate and adjust
    ISP rates and policies needed to support the recruitment and
    retention of CRNAs. The AANA thanks this subcommittee for its
    support of the annual ISP for nurse anesthetists. The AANA
    strongly recommends the continuation and an increase in annual
    funding of the ISP for fiscal year 2007. The ISP continues to
    recognize the special skills and advanced education that CRNAs
    bring to the Department of Defense health care system.
        Last, the establishment of the joint United States Army
    Veterans Administration Nurse Anesthesia Program at Fort Sam
    Houston in San Antonio continues to hope promise to make
    significant improvement to the military and VA CRNA workforce,
    as well as improving retention of VA-registered nurses in a
    cost-effective manner. These DOD partnerships are a cost-
    effective model to fill the needs of the military and VA health
    care system.
        In conclusion, the AANA believes that recruitment and
    retention of CRNAs in the armed services is critical to
    America's readiness. By Congress supporting the efforts to
    recruit and retain CRNAs, the military can meet the unique
    mission of its health care system. The AANA would like to thank
    the Surgeons General and Nurse Corps leadership for their
    support of the profession within the military workforce, and we
    commend and thank this subcommittee for their continued support
    of CRNAs in the military.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Paul N. Austin

        Chairman Stevens, ranking member Inouye, and Members of the
    subcommittee:
        The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) is the
    professional association representing over 34,000 certified registered
    nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) in the United States, including 483 Active
    Duty and 790 Reservists in the military reported in May 2005. The AANA
    appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony regarding CRNAs in the
    military. We would also like to thank this committee for the help it
    has given us in assisting the Department of Defense (DOD) and each of
    the services to recruit and retain CRNAs.

                  BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NURSE ANESTHETISTS

        In the administration of anesthesia, CRNAs perform the same
    functions as anesthesiologists and work in every setting in which
    anesthesia is delivered including hospital surgical suites and
    obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, health
    maintenance organizations, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists,
    ophthalmologists, and plastic surgeons. Today, CRNAs participate in
    approximately 65 percent of the anesthetics given to patients each year
    in the United States. Nurse anesthetists are also the sole anesthesia
    providers in more than two-thirds of rural hospitals, assuring access
    to surgical, obstetrical and other healthcare services for millions of
    rural Americans.
        CRNAs have a personal and professional commitment to patient
    safety, made evident through research into our practice. In our
    professional association, we state emphatically ``our members' only
    business is patient safety.'' Safety is assured through education, high
    standards of professional practice, and commitment to continuing
    education. Having first practiced as registered nurses, CRNAs are
    educated to the master's degree level and meet the most stringent
    continuing education and recertification standards in the field. Thanks
    to this tradition of advanced education, the clinical practice
    excellence of anesthesia professionals, and the advancement in
    technology, we are humbled and honored to note that anesthesia is 50
    times safer now than 20 years ago (National Academy of Sciences, 2000).
    Research further demonstrates that the care delivered by CRNAs,
    anesthesiologists, or by both working together yields similar patient
    safety outcomes. In addition to studies performed by the National
    Academy of Sciences in 1977, Forrest in 1980, Bechtholdt in 1981, the
    Minnesota Department of Health in 1994, and others, Dr. Michael Pine MD
    MBA recently concluded once again that among CRNAs and physician
    anesthesiologists, ``the type of anesthesia provider does not affect
    inpatient surgical mortality'' (Pine, 2003). Thus, the practice of
    anesthesia is a recognized specialty in nursing and medicine. Both
    CRNAs and anesthesiologists administer anesthesia for all types of
    surgical procedures from the simplest to the most complex, either as
    single providers or together.

                       NURSE ANESTHETISTS IN THE MILITARY

        Since the mid-19th Century, our profession of nurse anesthesia has
    been proud to provide anesthesia care for our past and present military
    personnel and their families. From the Civil War to the present day,
    nurse anesthetists have been the principal anesthesia providers in
    combat areas of every war in which the United States has been engaged.
        Military nurse anesthetists have been honored and decorated by the
    U.S. and foreign governments for outstanding achievements, resulting
    from their dedication and commitment to duty and competence in managing
    seriously wounded casualties. In World War II, there were 17 nurse
    anesthetists to every one anesthesiologist. In Vietnam, the ratio of
    CRNAs to physician anesthesiologists was approximately 3:1. Two nurse
    anesthetists were killed in Vietnam and their names have been engraved
    on the Vietnam Memorial Wall. During the Panama strike, only CRNAs were
    sent with the fighting forces. Nurse anesthetists served with honor
    during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Military CRNAs have provided
    critical anesthesia support to humanitarian missions around the globe
    in such places as Bosnia and Somalia. In May 2003, approximately 364
    nurse anesthetists had been deployed to the Middle East for the
    military mission for ``Operation Iraqi Freedom'' and ``Operation
    Enduring Freedom.''
        Data gathered from the U.S. Armed Forces anesthesia communities'
    reveal that CRNAs have often been the sole anesthesia providers at
    certain facilities, both at home and while forward deployed. For
    decades CRNAs have staffed ships, isolated U.S. bases, and forward
    surgical teams without physician anesthesia support. The U.S. Army
    Joint Special Operations Command Medical Team and all Army Forward
    Surgical Teams are staffed solely by CRNAs. U.S. Air Force Medical
    Special Operation Teams are staffed solely by CRNAs. Anesthesiologists
    rarely substitute into these billets. Military CRNAs have a long proud
    history of providing independent support and quality anesthesia care to
    military men and women, their families and to people from many nations
    who have found themselves in harm's way.
        In the current mission ``Operation Iraqi Freedom'' CRNAs will
    continue to be deployed both on ships and on the ground, as well as in
    U.S. special operations forces. In addition, military CRNAs are called
    upon to assist with humanitarian efforts on the home front and abroad.
    This committee must ensure that we retain and recruit CRNAs now and in
    the future to serve in these military overseas deployments and
    humanitarian efforts, and to ensure the maximum readiness of America's
    armed services.

    CRNA RETENTION AND RECRUITING: HOW THIS COMMITTEE CAN HELP THE DEFENSE
                                   DEPARTMENT

        In all of the Services, maintaining adequate numbers of active duty
    CRNAs is of utmost concern. For several years, the number of CRNAs
    serving in active duty has fallen somewhat short of the number
    authorized by the Department of Defense (DOD). This is further
    complicated by strong demand for CRNAs in both the public and private
    sectors.
        However, it is essential to understand that while there is strong
    demand for CRNA services in the public and private healthcare sectors,
    the profession of nurse anesthesia is working effectively to meet this
    workforce challenge. Our evidence suggests that while vacancies exist,
    there is not a crisis in the number of anesthesia providers. As of
    January 2006, there are 99 accredited CRNA schools to support the
    profession of nurse anesthesia. The number of qualified registered
    nurses applying to CRNA schools continues to climb. The growth in the
    number of schools, the number of applicants, and in production
    capacity, has yielded significant growth in the number of nurse
    anesthetists graduating and being certified into the profession. The
    Council on Certification of Nurse Anesthetists reports that in 2005,
    our schools produced 1,790 graduates, an 89 percent increase since
    1999, and 1,595 nurse anesthetists were certified. The growth is
    expected to continue. The Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia
    Educational Programs (COA) projects CRNA schools to produce over 1,900
    graduates in 2006.
        This committee can greatly assist in the effort to attract and
    maintain essential numbers of nurse anesthetists in the military by
    their support to increase special pays.

               INCENTIVE SPECIAL PAY (ISP) FOR NURSE ANESTHETISTS

        According to a March 1994 study requested by the Health Policy
    Directorate of Health Affairs and conducted by the Department of
    Defense, a large pay gap existed between annual civilian and military
    pay in 1992. This study concluded, ``this earnings gap is a major
    reason why the military has difficulty retaining CRNAs.'' In order to
    address this pay gap, in the fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization
    bill Congress authorized the implementation of an increase in the
    annual Incentive Special Pay (ISP) for nurse anesthetists from $6,000
    to $15,000 for those CRNAs no longer under service obligation to pay
    back their anesthesia education. Those CRNAs who remain obligated
    receive the $6,000 ISP. New nurse anesthesia graduates should be
    eligible to receive the full ISP and not a reduced portion when they
    are completing their obligated service.
        Both the House and Senate passed the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense
    Authorization Act Conference report, H. Rept. 107-772, which included
    an ISP increase to $50,000. The report included an increase in ISP for
    nurse anesthetists from $15,000 to $50,000. There had been no change in
    funding level for the ISP since the increase was instituted in fiscal
    year 1995, while it is certain that civilian pay has continued to rise
    during this time. Per the testimony provided earlier this month from
    the three services Nurse Corps leaders, the AANA is aware that there is
    an active effort to work with the Surgeons General to closely evaluate
    and adjust ISP rates and policies needed to support the recruitment and
    retention of CRNAs. Major General Gale Pollock, MBA, MHA, MS, CRNA,
    FACHE, Deputy Surgeon General, Army Nurse Corps of the U.S. Army stated
    earlier this month in testimony before this subcommittee,

        ``I am particularly concerned about the retention of our certified
    registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs). Our inventory of CRNAs is
    currently at 73 percent. The restructuring of the incentive special pay
    program for CRNAs last year, as well as the 180 (day)-deployment
    rotation policy were good first steps in stemming the loss of these
    highly trained providers. We are working closely with the Surgeon
    General's staff to closely evaluate and adjust rates and policies where
    needed.''

        Military CRNAs face frequent and lengthy deployments. The fewer
    military CRNAs, the more frequent the deployments, the more frequent
    the deployments, the greater the attrition. Congress needs to continue
    to support Military education of CRNA programs such as USUHS and FT Sam
    that produce our ``replacement'' military CRNAs.
        In addition, there still continues to be high demand for CRNAs in
    the healthcare community leading to higher incomes, widening the gap in
    pay for CRNAs in the civilian sector compared to the military. The
    fiscal year 2005 AANA Membership Survey measured income in the civilian
    sector by practice setting. The median income in a hospital setting is
    $135,000, anesthesiologist group $120,000, and self-employed CRNA
    $160,000. These median incomes include salary, call pay, overtime,
    bonus/incentives and other income. The median incomes in the Army, Navy
    and Air Force are $80,000, $87,750, and $88,824 respectively. These
    figures also include salary, call pay, overtime, bonus/incentives and
    other income, if applicable.
        In civilian practice, all additional skills, experience, duties and
    responsibilities, and hours of work are compensated for monetarily.
    Additionally, training (tuition and continuing education), healthcare,
    retirement, recruitment and retention bonuses, and other benefits often
    equal or exceed those offered in the military. Civilian practice offers
    a more stable lifestyle without threat of frequent moves or deployment
    into harms way. Salaries in the civilian sector will continue to create
    incentives for CRNAs to separate from the military, especially at the
    lower grades without a competitive incentive from the military to
    retain CRNAs. Therefore, it is vitally important that the Incentive
    Special Pay (ISP) be increased to ensure the retention of CRNAs in the
    military.
        The AANA thanks this committee for its support of the annual ISP
    for nurse anesthetists. The AANA strongly recommends the continuation
    and an increase in the annual funding for ISP for fiscal year 2007. The
    ISP recognizes the special skills and advanced education that CRNAs
    bring to the Department of Defense healthcare system.

                 BOARD CERTIFICATION PAY FOR NURSE ANESTHETISTS

        Included in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization bill was
    language authorizing the implementation of a board certification pay
    for certain healthcare professionals, including advanced practice
    nurses. AANA is highly supportive of board certification pay for all
    advanced practice nurses. The establishment of this type of pay for
    nurses recognizes that there are levels of excellence in the profession
    of nursing that should be recognized, just as in the medical
    profession. In addition, this type of pay may assist in closing the
    earnings gap, which may help with retention of CRNAs.
        The AANA encourages the Department of Defense and the respective
    Services to continue to support board certification pay. We greatly
    appreciate the support since it contributes to minimizing the Military/
    Civilian pay gap.

        DOD/VA RESOURCE SHARING: U.S. ARMY-VA NURSE ANESTHESIA SCHOOL:
       UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HOUSTON HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER, HOUSTON, TEXAS

        The establishment of the joint U.S. Army-VA program in nurse
    anesthesia education at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas holds
    the promise of making significant improvements in the VA CRNA
    workforce, as well as improving retention of VA registered nurses in a
    cost effective manner. The current program utilizes existing resources
    from both the Department of Veterans Affairs Employee Incentive
    Scholarship Program (EISP) and VA hospitals to fund tuition, books, and
    salary reimbursement for student registered nurse anesthetists (SRNAs).
        This VA nurse anesthesia program started in June 2004 with three
    openings for VA registered nurses to apply to and earn a Master of
    Science in Nursing (MSN) in anesthesia granted through the University
    of Texas Houston Health Science Center. Due to continued success and
    interest by VA registered nurses for the school, the program increased
    to five openings for the June 2005 class. This program continues to
    attract registered nurses into VA service, by sending RNs the strong
    message that the VA is committed to their professional and educational
    advancement. The faculty director would like to expand the program with
    an additional three VA registered nurses for the June 2006 class. In
    order to achieve this goal, it is necessary for full funding of the
    current and future EISP to cover tuition, books, and salary
    reimbursement.
        The 30-month program is broken down into two phases. Phase I, 12
    months, is the didactic portion of the anesthesia training at the U.S.
    AMEDD Center and School (U.S. Army School for Nurse Anesthesia). Phase
    II, 18 months, is clinical practice education, in which VA facilities
    and their affiliates would serve as clinical practice sites. In
    addition to the education taking place in Texas, the agency will use VA
    hospitals in Augusta, Georgia, increasing Phase II sites as necessary.
    Similar to military CRNAs who repay their educational investment
    through a service obligation to the U.S. Armed Forces, graduating VA
    CRNAs would serve a 3-year obligation to the VA health system. Through
    this kind of Department of Defense--DVA resource sharing, the VA will
    have an additional source of qualified CRNAs to meet anesthesia care
    staffing requirements.
        At a time of increased deployments in medical military personnel,
    VA-DOD partnerships are a cost-effective model to fill these gaps in
    the military healthcare system. At Fort Sam Houston nurse anesthesia
    school, the VA faculty director has covered her Army colleagues'
    didactic classes when they are deployed at a moments notice. This
    benefits both the VA and the DOD to ensure the nurse anesthesia
    students are trained and certified in a timely manner to meet their
    workforce obligation to the Federal government as anesthesia providers.
        We are pleased to note that the Department of Veterans' Affairs
    Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Health and the U.S. Army Surgeon
    General approved funding to start this VA nurse anesthesia school in
    2004. With modest levels of additional funding in the EISP, this joint
    U.S. Army-VA nurse anesthesia education initiative can grow and thrive,
    and serve, as a model for meeting other VA workforce needs,
    particularly in nursing.
        Department of Defense and VA resource sharing programs effectively
    maximize government resources while improving access to healthcare for
    Veterans.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In conclusion, the AANA believes that the recruitment and retention
    of CRNAs in the armed services is of critical concern. By Congress
    supporting these efforts to recruit and retain CRNAS, the military is
    able to meet the mission to provide benefit care and deployment care--a
    mission that is unique to the military. The AANA would also like to
    thank the Surgeons General and Nurse Corp leadership for their support
    in meeting the needs of the profession within the military workforce.
    Last, we commend and thank this committee for their continued support
    for CRNAs in the military.

        Senator Stevens. Thank you. We note you have suggested that
    the incentive pay be increased to $50,000. How did you arrive
    at that figure?
        Colonel Austin. Actually, the authorization already went
    through for it to be increased to $50,000, and that is
    currently being implemented, depending on the number of years
    that the member signs his contract.
        Senator Stevens. It is already authorized at that level?
        Colonel Austin. It is.
        Senator Stevens. I didn't understand. Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. What is the shortage among nurses?
        Colonel Austin. I'm sorry, sir?
        Senator Inouye. What is the shortage in the nurse
    anesthetist field?
        Colonel Austin. Currently, nationwide the vacancy rate is
    approximately 10 to 12 percent.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much.
        Colonel Austin. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Appreciate your testimony. Now, we will
    turn to Chris Hahn with the Applied Research Foundation.

    STATEMENT OF CHRIS HAHN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                MESOTHELIOMA APPLIED RESEARCH FOUNDATION
                (MARF)
        Mr. Hahn. Chairman Stevens, ranking member Inouye, and the
    distinguished members of the U.S. Senate Defense Appropriations
    Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity a few days before
    Memorial Day to address a fatal disease afflicting our
    veterans.
        My name is Chris Hahn. I am the Executive Director of the
    Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, the national
    nonprofit advancing research to develop treatments for
    mesothelioma.
        Mesothelioma, or Meso, is an aggressive cancer caused by
    asbestos exposure. It is among the most painful of cancers, as
    the tumor invades the chest wall, destroys vital organs, and
    crushes the lungs. It is also among the worst prognoses. Meso
    patients survive 4 to 14 months average. There is no cure.
        From the 1930s through the 1970s, asbestos was used
    literally everywhere on Navy ships, from engine rooms to living
    spaces. Millions of servicemen and shipyard workers were
    exposed. Today, many of them are developing mesothelioma
    following the disease's 10 to 50 year latency period.
        These are heroes who served our country's defense. Former
    Chief of Naval Operations Elmo Zumwalt developed mesothelioma
    in 2000, and died just 3 months later. His son, Colonel James
    Zumwalt, is here with us today. Louis Dietz volunteered for the
    Navy at age 18. He was decorated for his courage in combat in
    Vietnam. On the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, he tended the boilers. At
    age 55, he developed mesothelioma, and died 3 months later.
        Admiral Zumwalt's and sailor Dietz's stories are all too
    common. Of the 3,000 Americans each year who die of
    mesothelioma, one-third were exposed on U.S. ships and
    shipyards. That is 1,000 U.S. servicemen and shipyard workers
    each year lost through service to our country, just as if they
    had been on a battlefield. Many more heroes are being exposed
    now, and will develop the disease in the next 10 to 50 years.
    9/11 first responders were exposed to hundreds of tons of
    pulverized asbestos, and even though asbestos usage is not as
    heavy today as in the past, even low dose incidental exposures
    can cause Meso.
        Minnesota Congressman Bruce Vento happened to work near an
    asbestos-insulated boiler at his summer job while putting
    himself through college. In 2000, he developed mesothelioma and
    died.
        Despite this deadly toll on our heroes and patriots,
    mesothelioma research has been an orphan. The National Cancer
    Institute has provided virtually no funding. Of the $3.75
    billion spent so far through the DOD congressionally directed
    medical research program, none has been invested in Meso
    research, despite the military service connection. As a result,
    treatments for mesothelioma lag far behind other cancers. In
    fact, for decades, there was no treatment better than doing
    absolutely nothing at all.
        The hopelessness is starting to lift. Brilliant researchers
    and physicians are dedicated to mesothelioma. Just 2 years ago,
    the first drug ever for mesothelioma was approved when Doctor
    Nicholas Vogelsang, the head of the Nevada Cancer Institute and
    a member of our board of directors, proved that it was
    effective against the cancer. Dr. Harvey Pass, the Chief of
    Thoracic Surgery at NYU, is developing promising biomarkers for
    the disease. Gene therapy, anti-angiogenesis, and other
    promising approaches are being developed.
        There is hope, but we need the Federal Government to make a
    concerted investment. So we ask the DOD to include mesothelioma
    in the peer-reviewed medical research program. This will enable
    Meso investigators to compete for Federal funds, and will
    provide urgently needed resources to develop new treatments.
        Thank you very much, and we look to the subcommittee for
    your leadership to provide hope to our veterans who develop
    this cancer.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Hahn.
        [The statement follows:]

                        Prepared Statement of Chris Hahn

        Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye, and the distinguished
    members of the U.S. Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee:
        Thank you for this opportunity, a few days before Memorial Day, to
    address a fatal disease afflicting our military veterans, and those who
    helped build and protect our Nation. My name is Chris Hahn, I am the
    Executive Director of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, the
    national nonprofit collaboration of researchers, physicians, advocates,
    patients and families dedicated to advancing medical research to
    improve treatments for mesothelioma.

                             MALIGNANT MESOTHELIOMA

        Mesothelioma or meso is an aggressive cancer of the lining of the
    lungs, abdomen or heart, caused by asbestos exposure. The mesothelioma
    tumor is among the most painful of cancers, as it invades the sensitive
    chest wall, destroys vital organs, and crushes the lungs. It is also
    among the worst prognosis of cancers. Meso patients survive an average
    of 4 to 14 months; today there is no cure.

                THE ``MAGIC MINERAL''--EXPOSURES WERE WIDESPREAD

        As you may know, asbestos has so many beneficial properties that,
    until its fatal toxicity became fully recognized, it was regarded as
    the magic mineral. It has excellent fireproofing, insulating, filling
    and bonding properties. By the late 1930's and through at least the
    late 70's the Navy was using it extensively. It was used in engines,
    nuclear reactors, decking materials, pipe covering, hull insulation,
    valves, pumps, gaskets, boilers, distillers, evaporators, soot blowers,
    air conditioners, rope packing, and brakes and clutches on winches. In
    fact it was used all over Navy ships, even in living spaces where pipes
    were overhead and in kitchens where asbestos was used in ovens and in
    the wiring of appliances. Aside from Navy ships, asbestos was also used
    on military planes extensively, on military vehicles, and as insulating
    material on quonset huts and living quarters.
        As a result, military defense personnel, especially servicemen and
    shipyard workers, were heavily exposed. A study at the Groton,
    Connecticut shipyard found that over 100,000 workers had been exposed
    to asbestos over the years at just this one shipyard. Because of the 10
    to 50 year latency of the disease, many of the millions of exposed
    servicemen and shipyard workers are just now developing meso.

                         MESOTHELIOMA TAKES OUR HEROES

        These are the people who served our country's defense and built its
    fleet. They are heroes like former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral
    Elmo Zumwalt, Jr., who led the Navy during Vietnam and was renowned for
    his concern for enlisted men. Despite his rank, prestige, power, and
    leadership in protecting the health of Navy servicemen and veterans,
    Admiral Zumwalt died at Duke University in 2000, just 3 months after
    being diagnosed with mesothelioma.
        Lewis Deets was another of these heroes. Four days after turning
    the legal age of 18, Lewis joined the Navy. He was not drafted. He
    volunteered, willingly putting his life on the line to serve his
    country in Vietnam. He served in the war for over 4 years, from 1962 to
    1967, as a ship boilerman. For his valiance in combat operations
    against the guerilla forces in Vietnam he received a Letter of
    Commendation and The Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon for Exceptional
    Service. In December 1965, while Lewis was serving aboard the U.S.S.
    Kitty Hawk in the Gulf of Tonkin, a fierce fire broke out. The boilers,
    filled with asbestos, were burning. Two sailors were killed and 29 were
    injured. Lewis was one of the 29 injured; he suffered smoke inhalation
    while fighting the fire. After the fire, he helped rebuild the boilers,
    replacing the burned asbestos blocks. In 1999 he developed
    mesothelioma, and died 4 months later at age 55.
        Admiral Zumwalt's and Boilerman Deets' stories are not atypical. Of
    the approximately 3,000 U.S. citizens who die each year of meso, it is
    estimated that one-third were exposed on U.S. Navy ships or shipyards.
    That's 1,000 U.S. veterans and shipyard workers per year, lost through
    service to country, just as if they had been on a battlefield.
        In addition to these heroes, exposed 10 to 50 years ago and
    developing the disease today, many more are being exposed now and will
    develop the disease in 10 to 50 years. There is grave concern now for
    the heroic first responders from 9/11 who were exposed to hundreds of
    tons of pulverized asbestos at Ground Zero and throughout the city.
    Asbestos exposures have been reported among the troops now in Iraq. The
    utility tunnels in this very building may have dangerous levels. While
    active asbestos usage is not as heavy today as in the past, even low-
    dose, incidental exposures can cause meso. Congressman Bruce Vento, the
    distinguished Member from Minnesota, happened to work near an asbestos-
    insulated boiler in a brewery in Minneapolis for two summers while
    putting himself through college. As a result, he died of meso in 2000.
    His wife Susan now champions efforts to raise awareness about this
    deadly disease and the need for a federal investment in research toward
    a cure.

                     MESOTHELIOMA FUNDING HAS NOT KEPT PACE

        Despite this deadly toll on our heroes and patriots, meso has been
    an orphan disease. With the huge federal investment in cancer research
    through the NCI, and $3.75 billion spent in biomedical research through
    the DOD Congressionally Directed Research Program since 1992, we are
    winning the war on cancer and many other diseases. But for meso, the
    National Cancer Institute has provided virtually no funding, in the
    range of only $1.7 to $3 million annually over the course of the last 5
    years, and the DOD does not yet invest in any meso research despite the
    military-service connection. As a result, advancements in the treatment
    of mesothelioma have lagged far behind other cancers. In fact, for
    decades, there was no approved treatment better than doing nothing at
    all.

                               NEW OPPORTUNITIES

        But there is good news. A small but passionate community of
    physicians and researchers is committed to finding a cure. The decades-
    long hopelessness that treatment was futile is no longer true. Two
    years ago, the FDA approved a drug shown to be effective against the
    tumor. This was based on the largest phase III trial ever conducted in
    meso, led by Meso Foundation Board of Directors member Nicholas
    Vogelzang, head of the Nevada Cancer Institute. Two very promising
    biomarkers have just been identified. Two of the most exciting areas in
    cancer research generally--gene therapy and anti-angiogenesis--look
    particularly applicable in meso. With its seed-money grant funding, the
    Meso Foundation is supporting research in these and other areas. To
    date we have funded over $3 million to investigators working on novel,
    promising research projects. The scientific community believes that we
    can continue to advance the treatment of this disease and increase its
    survivability if the federal government makes a concerted investment.
        Therefore, we urge the DOD to partner in the progress being made,
    by including meso as an area of emphasis in the DOD's Peer Reviewed
    Medical Research Program. Inclusion in the list of congressionally
    identified priority research areas will enable mesothelioma researchers
    to compete for Federal funds based on the scientific merit of their
    work. This will provide urgently needed resources to explore new
    treatments and build a better understanding this disease. We look to
    the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to provide leadership
    and hope to the servicemen and women and veterans who develop this
    cancer after serving our Nation. Thank you for the opportunity to
    provide testimony before the subcommittee and we hope that we can work
    together to develop life-saving treatments for mesothelioma.

        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is--you do not have any
    questions, Senator? Senator Inouye, you have any questions?
        [No response.]
        Senator Stevens. Next is Captain Robert Hurd and Jessica
    Vance, a Naval Sea Cadet.

    STATEMENTS OF:
            PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS JESSICA A. VANCE, 2006 NAVAL SEA
                CADET OF THE YEAR, U.S. NAVAL SEA CADET CORPS
            CAPTAIN ROBERT C. HURD, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED)
        Captain Hurd. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye.
    It is my pleasure to introduce Petty Officer Vance, who is
    selected as a Naval Sea Cadet Corps cadet of the year, out of
    10,000 cadets last year. This Friday, she graduates from high
    school and is off to the Naval Academy almost immediately
    following that. Petty Officer Vance?
        Petty Officer Vance. Good morning. I am Naval Sea Cadet
    Corps Petty Officer Jessica Vance, leading Petty Officer of the
    Spruance Division in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, as well as a
    senior at Pine Crest School.
        It is an honor to address you on behalf of the Naval Sea
    Cadet Corps. There are now just under 10,000 young men and
    women ages 11 to 17 and adult volunteers proudly wearing the
    Naval Sea Cadet uniform in 374 units throughout the country. We
    are a congressionally chartered youth development and education
    program sponsored by the Navy League of the United States and
    supported by the Navy and Coast Guard. The program's main goals
    are development of young men and women while promoting interest
    and skill in seamanship and aviation, and instilling a sense of
    patriotism, courage, commitment, self-reliance, and honor,
    along with other qualities that mold strong moral character and
    self-discipline in a drug and gang-free environment.
        After completing boot camp, sea cadets choose from a
    variety of 2-week summer training sessions, including training
    aboard Navy and Coast Guard ships. Last summer, I was
    privileged to train aboard a Russian ship as one of the first
    U.S. participants in an international exchange program with
    Russia. During the year, we drill every weekend, and may
    complete Navy correspondence courses for advancement: this
    being the basis for accelerated promotion if a cadet should
    choose to enlist in the Navy or Coast Guard after leaving the
    program.
        Four hundred seventy-three former sea cadets now attend the
    United States Naval Academy, and approximately 400 former
    cadets annually enlist in the armed services, pre-screened,
    highly motivated, and well-prepared. I will be joining them in
    a few weeks as a new midshipmen at the Naval Academy. Knowing
    nothing about the military, the sea cadet program has prepared
    me for a life of service. Prior sea cadet experience has proven
    to be an excellent indicator of a potentially high career
    success rate, both in and out of the military.
        Whether or not we choose a service career, we all carry
    forth the forged values of good citizenship, leadership, and
    moral courage that we believe will benefit us and our country.
    A major difference between this and other federally chartered
    youth programs is that we are responsible for our own expenses,
    including uniforms, travel, insurance and training costs, which
    can amount to over $500 a year.
        The Corps, however, is particularly sensitive that no young
    person is denied access to the program because of socioeconomic
    status. Some units are financed in part by local sponsors. Yet
    this support, while greatly appreciated, is not sufficient to
    support all cadets. Federal funds over the past 6 years have
    been used to help offset cadets' out-of-pocket training costs.
    However, for a variety of reasons, current funding can no
    longer adequately sustain the program. These include inflation,
    base closures, and reduced base access, reduced afloat training
    opportunities, a lack of previously provided transportation,
    on-base berthing and based transportation, increase needs-base
    support for the cadets.
        We respectfully request your consideration and support for
    funding that will allow for the full amount of $2 million
    requested for the next year. Unfortunately, time precludes
    sharing the many stories that Captain Hurd has shared with your
    staffs this year, pointing out the many acts of courage,
    community service, and successful youth development of my
    fellow sea cadets, as well as those ex-cadets who are serving
    in our Armed Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.
    These stories and many more like them are unfortunately the
    youth stories that you do not always read about in the press.
        Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. I and
    the entire Sea Cadet Corps appreciate your support for this
    fine program that has meant so much to me over the past 5\1/2\
    years, and will continue to influence me for the rest of my
    life. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. That is a nice
    statement. And Captain, we appreciate your support and we will
    do our best.
        Do you have any questions, Senator?
        [No response.]
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Good luck to you at
    the Academy.
        Petty Officer Vance. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Robert C. Hurd

                                    REQUEST

        It is respectfully requested that $300,000 be appropriated for the
    NSCC in fiscal year 2007, so that when added to the Navy budgeted
    $1,700,000 will restore full funding at the $2,000,000 level. Further,
    in order to ensure future funding at the full $2,000,000 requirement,
    consideration of including the following conference language is
    requested:

        ``Congress is pleased to learn that Navy has funded the U.S. Naval
    Sea Cadet Corps in the fiscal year 2007 budget as urged by the Senate
    and House in the 2006 Defense Budget Conference Report. Conferees
    include an additional $300,000 for the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps, that
    when added to the $1,700,000 in the fiscal year 2007 budget request
    will fund the program at the full $2,000,000 requested. Conferees urge
    the Navy to continue to fund this program and increase the POM level to
    $2,000,000 for the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps.''

                                   BACKGROUND

        At the request of the Department of the Navy, the Navy League of
    the United States established the Naval Sea Cadet Corps in 1958 to
    ``create a favorable image of the Navy on the part of American youth.''
    On September 10, 1962, the U.S. Congress federally chartered the Naval
    Sea Cadet Corps under Public Law 87-655 as a non-profit civilian youth
    training organization for young people, ages 13 through 17. A national
    board of directors, whose chairman serves as the National Vice
    President of the Navy League for Youth Programs, establishes NSCC
    policy and management guidance for operation and administration. A
    full-time executive director and small staff in Arlington, Virginia
    administer NSCC's day-to-day operations. These professionals work with
    volunteer regional directors, unit commanding officers, and local
    sponsors. They also collaborate with Navy League councils and other
    civic, or patriotic organizations, and with local school systems.
        In close cooperation with, and the support of, the U.S. Navy and
    U.S. Coast Guard, the Sea Cadet Corps allows youth to sample military
    life without obligation to join the Armed Forces. Cadets and adult
    leaders are authorized to wear the Navy uniform, appropriately modified
    with a distinctive Sea Cadet insignia.
        There are currently over 374 Sea Cadet units with a program total
    of over 10,000 participants (2,500 adult officers and instructors and
    10,000 cadets (about 33 percent female). This is an all time high
    enrollment for the program.

                                NSCC OBJECTIVES

        Develop an interest and skill in seamanship and seagoing subjects.
        Develop an appreciation for our Navy's history, customs, traditions
    and its significant role in national defense.
        Develop positive qualities of patriotism, courage, self-reliance,
    confidence, pride in our Nation and other attributes, which contribute
    to development of strong moral character, good citizenship traits and a
    drug-free, gang-free lifestyle.
        Present the advantages and prestige of a military career.
        Under the Cadet Corps' umbrella is the Navy League Cadet Corps
    (NLCC), a youth program for children ages 11 through 13. While it is
    not part of the Federal charter provided by Congress, the Navy League
    of the United States sponsors NLCC. NLCC was established ``. . . to
    give young people mental, moral, and physical training through the
    medium of naval and other instruction, with the objective of developing
    principles of patriotism and good citizenship, instilling in them a
    sense of duty, discipline, self-respect, self-confidence, and a respect
    for others.''

                                    BENEFITS

        Naval Sea Cadets experience a unique opportunity for personal
    growth, development of self-esteem and self-confidence. Their
    participation in a variety of activities within a safe, alcohol-free,
    drug-free, and gang-free environment provides a positive alternative to
    other less favorable temptations. The Cadet Corps introduces young
    people to nautical skills, to maritime services and to a military life
    style. The program provides the young cadet the opportunity to
    experience self-reliance early on, while introducing this cadet to
    military life without any obligation to join a branch of the Armed
    Forces. The young cadet realizes the commitment required and routinely
    excels within the Navy and Coast Guard environments.
        Naval Sea Cadets receive first-hand knowledge of what life in the
    Navy or Coast Guard is like. This realization ensures the likelihood of
    success should they opt for a career in military service. For example,
    limited travel abroad and in Canada may be available, as well as the
    opportunity to train onboard Navy and Coast Guard ships, craft and
    aircraft. These young people may also participate in shore activities
    ranging from training as a student at a Navy hospital to learning the
    fundamentals of aviation maintenance at a Naval Air Station.
        The opportunity to compete for college scholarships is particularly
    significant. Since 1975, 188 cadets have received financial assistance
    in continuing their education in a chosen career field at college.

                                   ACTIVITIES

        Naval Sea Cadets pursue a variety of activities including
    classroom, practical and hands-on training as well as field trips,
    orientation visits to military installations, and cruises on Navy and
    Coast Guard ships and small craft. They also participate in a variety
    of community and civic events.
        The majority of sea cadet training and activities occurs year round
    at a local training or ``drill'' site. Often, this may be a military
    installation or base, a reserve center, a local school, civic hall, or
    sponsor-provided building. During the summer, activities move from the
    local training site and involve recruit training (boot camp),
    ``advanced'' training of choice, and a variety of other training
    opportunities (depending on the cadet's previous experience and
    desires).

                               SENIOR LEADERSHIP

        Volunteer Naval Sea Cadet Corps officers and instructors furnish
    senior leadership for the program. They willingly contribute their time
    and effort to serve America's youth. The Cadet Corps programs succeed
    because of their dedicated, active participation and commitment to the
    principles upon which the Corps was founded. Cadet Corps officers are
    appointed from the civilian sector or from active, reserve or retired
    military status. All are required to take orientation, intermediate and
    advanced officer professional development courses to increase their
    management and youth leadership skills. Appointment as an officer in
    the Sea Cadet Corps does not, in itself, confer any official military
    rank. However, a Navy-style uniform, bearing NSCC insignia, is
    authorized and worn. Cadet Corps officers receive no pay or allowances.
    Yet, they do derive some benefits, such as limited use of military
    facilities and space available air travel in conjunction with carrying
    out training duty orders.

                      DRUG-FREE AND GANG-FREE ENVIRONMENT

        One of the most important benefits of the sea cadet program is that
    it provides participating youth a peer structure and environment that
    places maximum emphasis on a drug and gang free environment. Supporting
    this effort is a close liaison with the U.S. Department of Justice Drug
    Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA offers the services of all
    DEA Demand Reduction Coordinators to provide individual unit training,
    as well as their being an integral part of our boot camp training
    program.
        Among a variety of awards and ribbons that cadets can work toward
    is the Drug Reduction Service Ribbon, awarded to those who display
    outstanding skills in he areas of leadership, perseverance and courage.
    Requirements include intensive anti-drug program training and giving
    anti-drug presentations to interested community groups.

                                    TRAINING

    Local Training
        Local training, held at the unit's drill site, includes a variety
    of activities supervised by qualified Sea Cadet Corps officers and
    instructors, as well as Navy and Coast Guard instructors.
        Cadets receive classroom and hands on practical instruction in
    basic military requirements, military drill, water and small boat
    safety, core personal values, social amenities, drug/alcohol abuse,
    cultural relations, Navy history, naval customs and traditions and
    other nautical skills. Training may be held aboard ships, small boats
    or aircraft, depending upon platform availability. In their training
    cadets also learn about and are exposed to a wide variety of civilian
    and military career opportunities through field trips and educational
    tours.
        Special presentations by military and civilian officials augment
    the local training, as does attendance at special briefings and events
    throughout the local area. Cadets are also encouraged and scheduled, to
    participate in civic activities and events to include parades, social
    work and community projects, all part of the ``whole person'' training
    concept.
        For all Naval sea cadets the training during the first several
    months is at their local training site and focuses on general
    orientation to and familiarization with, the entire program. It also
    prepares them for their first major away from home training event, the
    two weeks recruit training which all sea cadets must successfully
    complete.
        The Navy League Cadet Corps training program teaches younger cadets
    the virtues of personal neatness, loyalty, obedience, courtesy,
    dependability and a sense of responsibility for shipmates. In
    accordance with a Navy-oriented syllabus, this education prepares them
    for the higher level of training they will receive as Naval sea cadets.
    Summer Training
        After enrolling, all sea cadets must first attend a 2-week recruit
    training taught at the Navy's Recruit Training Command, at other Naval
    Bases or stations, and at regional recruit training sites using other
    military host resources. Instructed by Navy or NSCC Recruit Division
    Commanders, cadets train to a condensed version of the basic training
    that Navy enlistees receive. The curriculum is provided by the Navy and
    taught at all training sites. In 2005 there were 19 recruit training
    classes at 18 locations, including one class conducted over the winter
    holiday break and another held over spring break for the first time.
    About 18 nationwide regional sites are required to accommodate the
    steady demand for quotas and also to keep cadet and adult travel costs
    to a minimum. Approximately 2,000 cadets attended recruit training in
    2005 supported by another 300 adult volunteers.
        A cadet who successfully completes recruit training is eligible for
    advanced training in various fields of choice. Cadets can experience
    the excitement of ``hands-on'' practical training aboard Navy and Coast
    Guard vessels, ranging from tugboats and cutters to the largest
    nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Female cadets may also train aboard
    any ship that has females assigned as part of the ship's company.
    Qualified cadets choose from such sea cadet advanced training as basic/
    advanced airman, ceremonial guard, seamanship, sailing, SEAL training,
    amphibious operations, leadership, firefighting and emergency services,
    homeland security, mine warfare operations, Navy diving submarine
    orientation and training in occupational specialties, including health
    care, legal, music, master-at-arms and police science and construction.
        The Cadet Corp programs excel in quality and diversity of training
    offered, with more than 8,000 training orders carried out for the 2005
    summer training program. Cadets faced a myriad of challenging training
    opportunities designed to instill leadership and develop self-reliance,
    enabling them to become familiar with the full spectrum of Navy and
    Coast Guard career fields.
        This steady and continuing participation once again reflects the
    popularity of the NSCC and the positive results of Federal funding for
    2001 through 2005. The NSCC still continues to experience an average
    increased recruit and advanced training attendance of well over 2,000
    cadets per year over those years in which Federal funding was not
    available.
        While recruit training acquaints cadets with Navy life and Navy
    style discipline, advanced training focuses on military and general
    career fields and opportunities, and also affords the cadets many
    entertaining, drug free, disciplined yet fun activities over the
    summer. The popularity of the training continues to grow not with just
    overall numbers but also as evidenced with numerous cadets performing
    multiple 2-week training sessions during the summer of 2005.
        Training highlights for 2005: The 2005 training focus was once
    again on providing every cadet the opportunity to perform either
    recruit or advanced training during the year. To that end emphasis was
    placed on maintaining all traditional and new training opportunities
    developed since Federal funding was approved for the NSCC. These
    include more classes in sailing and legal (JAG) training, expanded SEAL
    training opportunity, more SCUBA and diving training classes, more
    seamanship training onboard the NSCC training vessels on the Great
    Lakes, more aviation related training and additional honor guard
    training opportunities. Other highlights included:
      --With Federal funding continuing to be available, maintained once
            again national recruit training opportunities for every cadet
            wanting to participate with 19 training camps in 2005.
      --In spite of escalating costs and increased competition for base
            resources, kept cadet summer training cost at only $40 per week
            for the second consecutive year.
      --Continued NSCC's expanded use of Army and National Guard facilities
            to accommodate demand for quotas for recruit training.
      --Maintained an aggressive NSCC Officer Professional Development
            Program with three different weekend courses tailored to
            improving volunteer knowledge and leadership skills. Between
            400 and 500 volunteers attended 2005 training at over 37
            different training evolutions. In support of this adult
            volunteer training, maintained for a second year NSCC's program
            for reducing volunteer out-of-pocket expenses.
      --Expanded opportunity for culinary arts training for cadets from one
            to three classes at three different locations.
      --Implemented for the first time naval engineering classes for NSCC
            cadets at the Naval Training Command, Great Lakes.
      --Increased attendance at the NSCC Petty Officer Leadership Academies
            and implemented a pilot junior petty officer leadership program
            for younger and more junior cadets new to the program.
      --Expanded sail training to include two additional classes onboard
            ``tall ships'' in Newport, Rhode Island.
      --Conducted first NSCC marksmanship program at ANG Camp Perry, Port
            Clinton, Ohio with the assistance and support of the Civilian
            Marksmanship Program headquartered there.
      --Conducted first NSCC military vehicle maintenance class at Fort
            Custer Training Center, Battle Creek, Michigan.
      --Placed cadets aboard USCG Barque Eagle for an orientation cruise
            from Lisbon, Portugal to New London, Connecticut.
      --Placed cadets onboard U.S. Navy ships and USCG stations, cutters
            and tenders.

                         INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM

        For 2005 the NSCC again continued for the fourth year its'
    redesigned and highly competitive, merit based and very low cost to the
    cadet, International Exchange Program. Cadets were placed in Australia,
    United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands, Hong Kong, Korea and Bermuda to
    train with fellow cadets in these host nations. The NSCC and Canada
    maintained their traditional exchanges in Nova Scotia and British
    Columbia and the NSCC hosted visiting cadets in Newport. Rhode Island
    and at ANG Gowen Field in Boise, Idaho for 2 weeks of NSCC sponsored
    training. New in 2005 were exchanges to Saint Petersberg, Russia and
    also to Scotland.

                           NAVY LEAGUE CADET TRAINING

        In 2005, over 1,120 Navy league cadets and escorts attended
    orientation training at 17 different sites. This diversity in location
    made training accessible and reasonably available to each cadet who
    wished to attend. Over 373 league cadets and escorts attended advanced
    training at several sites. The advanced program was developed in
    recognition of the need to provide follow-on training for this younger
    age group to sustain their interest and to better prepare them for the
    challenges of Naval Sea Cadet Corps training. Navy league cadets who
    attend recruit orientation training are exceptionally well prepared for
    sea cadet ``boot camp.''

                                  SCHOLARSHIPS

        The Naval Sea Cadet Corps Scholarship program was established to
    provide financial assistance to deserving cadets who wished to further
    their education at the college level. Established in 1975, the
    scholarship program consists of a family of funds: the NSCC Scholarship
    Fund; the Navy League Stockholm Scholarship and the NSCC ``named
    scholarship'' program, designed to recognize an individual,
    corporation, organization or foundation. In 2005, Morgan & Helen Fitch
    Scholarship was added to this group. Since the inception of the
    scholarship program, 198 scholarships have been awarded to 188 cadets
    (includes some renewals) totaling over $229,500.

                               SERVICE ACCESSIONS

        The Naval Sea Cadet Corps was formed at the request of the
    Department of the Navy as a means to ``enhance the Navy image in the
    minds of American youth.'' To accomplish this, ongoing presentations
    illustrate to Naval sea cadets the advantages and benefits of careers
    in the armed services, and in particular, the sea services.
        While there is no service obligation associated with the Naval Sea
    Cadet Corps program, many sea cadets choose to enlist or enroll in
    officer training programs in all the Services.
        Annually, the NSCC conducts a survey to determine the approximate
    number of cadets making this career decision. This survey is conducted
    during the annual inspections of the units. The reported cadet
    accessions to the services are only those that are known to the unit at
    that time. There are many accessions that occur in the 2-5 year
    timeframe after cadets leave their units, which go unreported. With
    about 80 percent of the units reporting, the survey indicates that 408
    known cadets entered the Armed Forces during the reporting year ending
    December 31, 2004. Further liaison with the USNA indicates that in
    fact, there are currently 482 Midshipmen with sea cadet backgrounds--
    almost 10 percent of the entire Brigade. Navy accession recruiting
    costs have averaged over $14,500 per person, officer or enlisted, which
    applied to the number of sea cadet accessions represents a significant
    financial benefit to the Navy. Equally important is the expectation
    that once a more accurate measurement methodology can be found, is,
    that since sea cadets enter the Armed Forces as disciplined, well
    trained and motivated individuals, their retention, graduation and
    first term enlistment completion rates are perhaps the highest among
    any other entry group. USNA officials are currently studying graduation
    rates for past years for ex-sea cadets as a group as compared to the
    entire Brigade. Their preliminary opinion is that these percents will
    be among the highest. It is further expected that this factor will be
    an excellent indicator of the following, not only for the USNA, but for
    all officer and enlisted programs the sea cadets may enter:
      --Extremely high motivation of ex-cadets to enter the Service.
      --Excellent background provided by the U.S. Naval sea cadet
            experience in preparing and motivating cadets to enter the
            Service.
      --Prior U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps experience is an excellent pre-
            screening opportunity for young men and women to evaluate their
            interest in pursuing a military career. This factor could
            potentially save considerable tax-payer dollars expended on
            individuals who apply for, then resign after entering the
            Academy if they decide at some point they do not have the
            interest or motivation.
      --U.S. Naval sea cadet experience prior to entering the Service is an
            excellent indicator of a potentially high success rate.
        Data similar to the above has been requested from the United States
    Coast Guard Academy and the United States Merchant Marine Academy.
        Whether or not they choose a service career, all sea cadets carry
    forth learned values of good citizenship, leadership and moral courage
    that will benefit themselves and our country.

                                PROGRAM FINANCES

        Sea cadets pay for all expenses, including travel to/from training,
    uniforms, insurance and training costs. Out-of-pocket costs can reach
    $500 each year. Assistance is made available so that no young person is
    denied access to the program, regardless of social or economic
    background.
        Federally funded at the $1,000,000 level in fiscal year's 2001,
    2002, and 2003, and at $1,500,000 in fiscal year 2004 and $1,700,000 in
    2005 (of the $2,000,000 requested), all of these fund were used to
    offset individual cadet's individual costs for summer training, conduct
    of background checks for adult volunteers and for reducing future
    enrollment costs for cadets. In addition to the Federal fund received,
    NSCC receives under $700,000 per year from other sources, which
    includes around $226,000 in enrollment fees from cadets and adult
    volunteers. For a variety of reasons, at a minimum, this current level
    of funding is necessary to sustain this program and the full $2,000,000
    would allow for program expansion:
      --All time high in number of enrolled sea cadets.
      --General inflation of all costs.
      --Some bases denying planned access to sea cadets for training due to
            increased terrorism threat level alerts and the associated
            tightening of security measures--requiring cadets to utilize
            alternative, and often more costly training alternatives.
      --Reduced availability of afloat training opportunities due to the
            Navy's high level of operations related to the Iraq war.
      --Reduced training site opportunities due to base closures.
      --Non-availability of open bay berthing opportunities for cadets due
            to their elimination as a result of enlisted habitability
            upgrades to individual/double berthing spaces.
      --Lack of available ``Space Available'' transportation for group
            movements.
      --Lack of on-base transportation, as the Navy no longer ``owns''
            busses now controlled by the GSA.
      --Navy outsourcing of messing facilities to civilian contractors
            increases the individual cadet's meal costs.
        Because of these factors, cadet out-of-pocket costs have
    skyrocketed to the point where the requested $2,000,000 alone would be
    barely sufficient to handle cost increases.
        It is therefore considered a matter of urgency that the full amount
    of the requested $2,000,000 be authorized and appropriated for fiscal
    year 2005.

        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Sherry Salway Black,
    Executive Director of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance.

    STATEMENT OF SHERRY SALWAY BLACK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                OVARIAN CANCER NATIONAL ALLIANCE
        Ms. Black. Good morning Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye,
    and other members of the subcommittee. My name is Sherry Salway
    Black, and I am a 4-year survivor of ovarian and endometrial
    cancers. As such, I am lucky to stand before you today as the
    Executive Director of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance. On
    behalf of the Alliance, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify about the Ovarian Cancer Research Program at the
    Department of Defense.
        As a national organization with 50 regional, State, and
    local groups, the Alliance unites and reaches more than 800,000
    grassroots activists, women health advocates, health care
    professionals, and the public, to bring national attention to
    ovarian cancer. Since its inception 9 years ago, the Alliance
    has worked to increase awareness of ovarian cancer and boost
    Federal resources to support scientific research into
    diagnostics and treatments of the disease.
        Among the most urgent challenges in the ovarian cancer
    field is late detection, which leads to poor survival rates. To
    that end, the Alliance respectfully requests the subcommittee
    to provide a federal investment of $15 million for the DOD
    Ovarian Cancer Research Program in fiscal year 2007. This
    amount would be a $5 million increase, and would be the first
    increase for the program in 4 years. According to the Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention, $2.2 billion is spent on
    treatment for ovarian cancer yearly. This figure could be
    greatly reduced with an earlier diagnosis, which could only be
    achieved through an effective screening tool. Research
    conducted through the ovarian cancer research program aims at
    developing such a tool.
        Like many women, I was lucky when I received my diagnosis.
    I am considered truly one of the lucky ones. My two cancers
    were found early in stage one when I had the best chance of
    surviving, something only 19 percent of women with this disease
    can claim. Most of the 20,000 women who will receive a
    diagnosis of ovarian cancer this year will never have the
    opportunity to speak before this subcommittee, because they
    will fight ovarian cancer until it claims their lives.
    Currently, almost half, 45 percent, of women with ovarian
    cancer die within 5 years of diagnosis.
        Like most women diagnosed early, my good fortune was not
    the result of my awareness of the symptoms or knowledge that I
    was a higher risk, and it was not the result of my having
    access to a currently nonexistent early screening test. My good
    fortune was the lucky result of my perseverance with my doctor
    and my subsequent treatment by an appropriate gynecologic
    oncologist specialist.
        All women should have the opportunity to survive ovarian
    cancer. No one should have to rely on luck for survival.
    Consistent investment in ovarian cancer research is vital in
    our fight against this deadly disease. The DOD Ovarian Cancer
    Research Program is essential in our national research
    portfolio. This program strives to fill the myriad of gaps in
    our knowledge, and is searching for innovative unique
    approaches to solve the enigma of early detection.
        Awards made by the DOD ovarian cancer research program are
    designed to stimulate research that will attract new
    investigators into the field, challenge existing paradigms, and
    support collaborative ventures including partnerships with
    private and public institutions. The innovation grants offered
    by the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program are paramount to our
    success, since traditional research models have failed to make
    timely progress against ovarian cancer.
        Today, we rely on the grace of luck for protection against
    ovarian cancer, and therefore, mortality rates have not
    significantly decreased in decades. If your wife, mother,
    daughter, or friend, were diagnosed with ovarian cancer this
    year, her chances of surviving ovarian cancer would not be
    significantly different than your grandmother's chances. In the
    21st century, it is no longer acceptable to depend on luck to
    save women's lives. We must continue to learn more about this
    disease so we can definitively change the future for our
    daughters, granddaughters, and all women.
        The DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program is small but it
    does tremendous work for the Nation. It is financially and
    scientifically sound, with a track record of success. The
    program operated with only a 6 percent management cost in 2005,
    and has received accolades. Just last week we learned that the
    House committee subcommittee agreed to appropriate $15 million
    for the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program. For the second
    year in a row they have recognized the urgent need to support
    this program with a $5 million increase, despite a tough budget
    climate.
        It is my sincere hope that this subcommittee will join them
    by appropriating $15 million to the Ovarian Cancer Research
    Program in fiscal year 2007. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Since this
    subcommittee first added money to the defense budget in 1981
    for medical research, and it was breast cancer at the time, and
    AIDS I think in 1982, it has grown from $25 million a year to
    over $1 billion. I expect we will get requests from every
    segment here today to increase that funding, but it really has
    reached its level where it would be very difficult to increase
    that much further, and maintain the support we have to maintain
    for our troops in the field. But we will try. Thank you very
    much.
        Ms. Black. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Sherry Salway Black

                       OVARIAN CANCER'S DEADLY STATISTICS

        According to the American Cancer Society, in 2006 more than 20,000
    American women will be newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and more
    than 15,000 women will lose their lives to it, making this disease the
    fifth leading cause of cancer death in women. Currently, almost half
    (45 percent) of women with ovarian cancer will die within 5 years of
    diagnosis. More than 75 percent of women with ovarian cancer are
    diagnosed in later stages, when the 5-year survival rate drops below 30
    percent. When detected early, the 5-year survival rate increases to
    more than 90 percent. The key to increased survival rates is early
    detection, but a valid and reliable screening test does not yet exist.

                                    Graph 1

                                    Graph 2

        Today, it is both striking and disheartening to see that despite
    progress made in the scientific, medical and advocacy communities,
    ovarian cancer mortality rates have not significantly decreased. Behind
    the sobering statistics are the lost lives of our loved ones,
    colleagues and community members. While we have been waiting for the
    development of an early detection test, hundreds of thousands of our
    loved ones have lost their battle to ovarian cancer.
        Today, early diagnosis is rarely a result of a patients' awareness
    of symptoms or their physicians' awareness. Rather, early diagnosis is
    often the result of pure luck. In a country as wealthy and
    scientifically advanced as the United States, women should not have to
    rely on luck for their survival. Ovarian cancer research must continue
    through all possible avenues, building a comprehensive knowledge of its
    symptoms, causes and treatments. All women should have access to
    treatment by a specialist. All women should have access to a valid and
    reliable screening test. We must deliver new and better treatments to
    patients and the health care professionals who treat them. Research
    conducted through the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program works toward
    a better understanding of this cancer in collaboration with the
    National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institutes of Health
    to avoid duplication of research.

        THE OVARIAN CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

        Congress has appropriated funds for the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research
    Program since 1997. The program was charged to attract new
    investigators into the field and fund multidisciplinary research that
    investigates innovative study methods for learning about early
    detection, screening and treatment of ovarian cancer. The program
    offers awards that specifically seek to fill gaps in ongoing research
    and to complement initiatives sponsored by other agencies.
        Since its inception, the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program has
    lead to numerous discoveries, including:
      --Risk Factor Breakthrough.--The discovery that the hormone progestin
            is a key agent in oral contraceptives' activity in reducing the
            risk of ovarian cancer.
      --Treatment Breakthrough.--The recognition of three new anti-
            angiogenesis agents; in cancer, excessive angiogenesis feeds
            the cancerous tissue oxygen and nutrients, destroying
            surrounding healthy tissues while allowing tumor cells to
            metastasize. The development of anti-angiogenesis agents
            through ovarian cancer research has had implications for all
            cancers.
      --Early Detection Breakthrough.--The identification of new biomarkers
            which have the potential to improve early detection. Increased
            funding will allow investigators to begin early stage clinical
            trials to determine the utility of their discoveries.
      --Treatment Breakthrough.--The use of alpha radiation to treat
            advanced ovarian cancer; alpha radiation efficiently kills
            ovarian cancer cells with multivesicular liposomes to control
            negative results.

                            SPRINGBOARD OF DISCOVERY

        Research conducted through the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program
    has contributed 246 publications and 274 abstracts, serving to bolster
    and expand the limited body of scientific knowledge of ovarian cancer.
    Perhaps most significantly, the Ovarian Cancer Research Program is
    responsible for the recruitment of 28 new investigators. Additionally,
    the Fox Chase Cancer Center and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
    Center reported that the progress made through their DOD Program
    Project Awards enabled both institutions to successfully compete for
    NCI SPORE (Specialized Programs of Research Excellence) funding to
    pursue additional long-term ovarian cancer research.
        This body of scientific accomplishments would enjoy significant
    growth with expanded funding. In fiscal year 2005, the Ovarian Cancer
    Research Program was only able to fund less than 15 percent of its
    received research proposals. With increased funding, additional
    research initiatives could be supported, resulting in an increase in
    our scientific knowledge of ovarian cancer.
        The maturation of the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program
    infrastructure and management, plus the culmination of past investments
    have combined for an explosion of exciting scientific discoveries in
    the past 2 years. In 2005 the pace of discovery increased notably.
    Researchers funded by the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program made
    substantial progress with the following breakthroughs:
      --Early Diagnosis.--Identification of three genes that control the
            development of ovarian cancer, which may serve as molecular
            markers for improved early diagnosis.
      --Early Diagnosis.--Recognition of two new serum biomarkers expressed
            in early stage ovarian cancer, which may serve as the basis for
            an early detection test.
      --Treatment Improvement.--Discovery of immune cells' role in ovarian
            cancer, leading to the development of a new therapy that will
            help prevent tumors from receiving the nutrients necessary to
            grow and metastasize.
      --Treatment Improvement.--Detection of the inhibitory qualities of a
            genetically-engineered protein on the growth of ovarian cancer,
            which may develop into a viable treatment option.
      --Treatment Improvement.--Findings on the benefits of squalamine (an
            organic compound) in increasing the effectiveness of classic
            ovarian cancer chemotherapy treatments.
        These breakthroughs demonstrate that the science is ripe for
    significant advancement in our knowledge of ovarian cancer. We must
    take advantage of this opportunity by supporting the DOD Ovarian Cancer
    Research Program through sustained appropriations in fiscal year 2007.

                          INCREASED INVESTMENT NEEDED

        In fiscal year 2005, the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program
    received 225 proposals, but due to resource limitations, was only able
    to fund 16 awards. The program has achieved great success, but to
    decrease ovarian cancer mortality rates we must sustain our investment
    in ovarian cancer research. Without enhanced funding the discoveries
    outlined in this testimony will never be translated into clinical
    research.
        Funding allocated in fiscal year 2006 will support grants in three
    research areas: (1) etiology and tumor biology, (2) preclinical
    development of targeted therapeutics, and (3) early detection and
    diagnosis. If granted, fiscal year 2007 funds would help expand these
    research areas.
      --Concept Awards are grants that focus on attracting researchers who
            wish to challenge current approaches in ovarian cancer
            research, explore innovative concepts and pursue under-explored
            hypotheses.
      --Idea Development Awards are grants for researchers who wish to
            improve current approaches to prevention, detection, diagnosis
            and treatment of ovarian cancer. These awards focus on the
            implementation of innovative methods of research or novel
            adaptations of existing methods of research.
      --Historically Black Colleges & Universities/Minority Institutions
            Collaborative Research Awards link novice investigators with
            well-established ovarian cancer researchers to encourage the
            involvement of minority institutions in the fight against
            ovarian cancer.
        The DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program has received $10 million
    for each of the past 5 years for which we thank the subcommittee.
    However, when biomedical inflation is taken into account, the
    allocation represents an overall diminished level of funding--at the
    same time ovarian cancer mortality rates remain constant. With
    additional funding, the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program can support
    new grants, provide funding to promising young investigators, and
    allocate additional resources to grants that should be extended or
    renewed.

                             SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

        We still do not fully understand the risk factors, symptoms or
    causes of ovarian cancer. We still do not have an early detection test
    for ovarian cancer. As a result, mortality rates for this deadly
    disease have remained constant far too long. Previous appropriations
    Congress has made for the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program are
    appreciated and have helped move the field forward. New resources are
    needed in the coming year to sustain current efforts, but more
    importantly to continue to reap benefits from previous and current
    Federal investments.
        The Alliance maintains a long-standing commitment to work with
    Congress, the administration, and other policymakers and stakeholders
    to improve the survival rate from ovarian cancer through education,
    public policy, research and communication. Please know we appreciate
    and understand that our Nation faces many challenges and Congress has
    limited resources to allocate; however, we are concerned that without
    increased funding to bolster and expand ovarian cancer research
    efforts, the Nation will continue to see growing numbers of women lose
    their battle with this terrible disease.
        Thank you for your consideration of our views and for providing $15
    million in fiscal year 2007 for the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research
    Program.

        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Captain Marshall
    Hanson, the National Military Veterans Alliance. Good morning.
        Captain Hanson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARSHALL HANSON, UNITED STATES
                NAVY RESERVE (RETIRED), CO-DIRECTOR,
                NATIONAL MILITARY VETERANS ALLIANCE
        Captain Hanson. As co-director of the National Military
    Veterans Alliance (NMVA), I am honored to testify on behalf of
    the National Military and Veterans Alliance. The Alliance has
    grown to 30 military retiree, veterans, and survivor
    associations, representing over 3.5 million members. The
    overall goal of the NMVA is a strong national defense.
        In the long war, recruiting and retention has become
    paramount. The willingness of our young people today to serve
    in this war will relate to their perception of how the veterans
    of this war are being treated. The NMVA supports various
    incentives and bonuses to encourage participation. Our serving
    members are patriots willing to accept peril and sacrifice to
    defend the value of this country. All they ask for is fair
    recompense for their actions. At a time of war, compensation
    really offsets the risks. Let's not undervalue our young
    warriors. These payments are an investment toward our national
    security.
        The targeted pay increases included in Senate Bill 2766
    align with NMVA's goals. It is also crucial that the military
    health care is funded. NMVA is concerned that the President's
    DOD health care budget may have been underestimated because of
    some suggested Pentagon initiatives. We ask that you continue
    to fully fund military health care in fiscal year 2007. We do
    not want our serving members to be distracted from their
    mission with worries about their families' health care. And if
    our servicemembers pay that ultimate sacrifice, we need to
    provide every financial support to their families to help them
    in transition.
        The survivor benefit plan dependency and indemnity
    compensation offset is a conflict between a purchased annuity
    and an indemnity program. It affects our serving members.
    Recently, Congress created active duty survivor benefit plan
    (SBP) as a benefit intended for families who lost
    servicemembers. With the present offsets, the vast majority of
    our enlisted families receive no benefit from this new program
    because SBP is completely offset by dependency and indemnity
    compensation (DIC). This affects both younger and older
    surviving families.
        Senate Bill 2766, section 642, repeals the requirement of
    reducing SBP to offset DIC. The NMVA respectfully requests that
    this subcommittee fund that provision.
        Further, NMVA supports funding section 606, which extends a
    continuation of housing allowances for spouses and dependents
    of members who have died on active duty. The NMVA also supports
    funding of full payment of premiums for coverage under the
    servicemembers' group life insurance program during service in
    Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
        Our Active and Reserve serving members face enough
    challenges as they adapt to a lifestyle with an ever-present
    war. The NMVA is confident in your ongoing support, and the
    Alliance would like to thank the subcommittee for its efforts,
    and this opportunity to testify. Please let us know how we can
    assist.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much. I think a lot
    of the things you suggested require the authorization
    subcommittee's concurrence first, before we can appropriate the
    moneys, but will follow their lead if we----
        Captain Hanson. Right, and they have been placed in the
    markup of the bill, and of course the Senate will be looking at
    that in the next couple of weeks.
        Senator Stevens. All right. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Marshall Hanson

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the committee, the
    National Military and Veterans Alliance (NMVA) is very grateful for the
    invitation to testify before you about our views and suggestions
    concerning defense funding issues. The overall goal of the National
    Military and Veteran's Alliance is a strong National Defense. In light
    of this overall objective, we would request that the committee examine
    the following proposals.
        While the NMVA highlights the funding of benefits, we do this
    because it supports National Defense. A phrase often quoted ``The
    willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war,
    no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they
    perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by
    their country,'' has been frequently attributed to General George
    Washington. Yet today, many of the programs that have been viewed as
    being veteran or retiree are viable programs for the young veterans of
    this war. This phrase can now read ``The willingness with which our
    young people, today, are willing to serve in this war is how they
    perceive the veterans of this war are being treated.''
        In a long war, recruiting and retention becomes paramount. The
    National Military and Veterans Alliance, through this testimony hope to
    address funding issues that apply to the veterans of various
    generations.

                              PAY AND COMPENSATION

        Our serving members are patriots willing to accept peril and
    sacrifice to defend the values of this country. All they ask for is
    fair recompense for their actions. At a time of war, compensation
    rarely offsets the risks.
        The NMVA requests funding so that the annual enlisted military pay
    raise equals or exceeds the Employment Cost Index (ECI).
        Further, we hope that this committee supports targeted pay raises
    for those mid-grade members who have increased responsibility in
    relation to the overall service mission.
        NMVA would apply the same allowance standards to both Active and
    Reserve when it comes to Aviation Career Incentive Pay, Career Enlisted
    Flyers Incentive Pay, Diving Special Duty Pay, Hazardous Duty Incentive
    Pay and other special pays. We thank Congress for recognizing, last
    year that foreign language professional pay was for a special skill
    needing to be maintained 365 days a year.
        The Service chiefs have admitted one of the biggest retention
    challenges is to recruit and retain medical professionals.
        NMVA urges the inclusion of bonus/cash payments (Incentive
    Specialty pay IPS) into the calculations of retirement pay for military
    health care providers. NMVA has received feedback that this would be
    incentive to many medical professionals to stay in longer.

                           FORCE POLICY AND STRUCTURE

    End Strength
        The NMVA supports funding increases in support of the end strength
    boosts of the active duty component of the Army and Marine Corps that
    have been recommended by Defense authorizers. New recruits need to be
    found and trained now to start the process so that American taxpayer
    can get a return on this investment. Such growth is not instantaneously
    productive. NMVA also hopes that this subcommittee would include
    language reminding the Department of Defense that once appropriated
    that each service should proactively recruit to try to attain these
    numbers.
        The NMVA would like to also put a freeze on reductions to the Guard
    and Reserve manning levels. With the Commission on the Guard and
    Reserve now active, it makes sense to put a moratorium on changes to
    End Strength until after they report back to Congress with
    recommendations. NMVA urges this subcommittee to fund to last year's
    levels.

             SURVIVOR BENEFITS PLAN (SBP) AND SURVIVOR IMPROVEMENTS

        The Alliance wishes to deeply thank this subcommittee for your
    funding of improvements in the myriad of survivor programs.
        However, there are still two remaining issues to deal with to make
    SBP the program Congress always intended it to be:
      --Ending the SBP/DIC offset and
      --Moving up the effective date for paid up SBP to October 1, 2006.
        SBP/DIC Offset affects several groups. The first is the family of a
    retired member of the uniformed services. At this time the SBP annuity
    he or she has paid for is offset dollar for dollar for the DIC survivor
    benefits paid through the VA, this puts a disabled retiree in a very
    unfortunate position. If he or she is leaving the service disabled it
    is only wise to enroll in the Survivor Benefit Plan (perhaps being
    uninsurable in the private sector). If death is service connected then
    the survivor looses dollar for dollar for what the DIC pays.
        SBP is a purchased annuity, an earned employee benefit. It is a
    retirement plan for the surviving spouse. Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation (DIC) is an indemnity program to compensate a family for
    the loss of a loved one due to his or her military service. They are
    different programs created to fill different purposes and needs.
        A second group affected by this dollar for dollar offset is made up
    of families whose servicemember died on active duty. Recently Congress
    created active duty SBP. These service members never had the chance to
    pay into the SBP program. But clearly Congress intended to give these
    families a benefit. With the present off-set in place the vast majority
    of families receive no benefit from this new program, because the vast
    number of our losses are young men or women in the lower paying ranks.
    SBP is completely offset by DIC payments.
        Other affected families are servicemembers who have already served
    a substantial time in the military. Their surviving spouse is left in a
    worse financial position that a younger widow. The older widows will
    normally not be receiving benefits for her children from either Social
    Security or the VA and will normally have more substantial financial
    obligations (mortgages etc). This spouse is very dependent on the SBP
    and DIC payments and should be able to receive both.
        Thirty Year Paid-Up SBP.--In the fiscal year 1999 Defense
    Authorization Act Congress created a simple and fair paid up provision
    for the Survivor Benefit Plan. A member who had paid into the program
    for 30 years and reached the age of 70 could stop paying premiums and
    still have the full protection of the plan for his or her spouse.
    Except that the effective date of this provision is October 1, 2008.
    Many have been paying for as long as 34 years.
        The NMVA respectfully requests this subcommittee fund the SBP/DIC
    offset and 30 year paid-up SBP if authorized.
        current and future issues facing uniformed services health care
        The National Military and Veterans Alliance must once again thank
    this committee for the great strides that have been made over the last
    few years to improve the health care provided to the active duty
    members, their families, survivors and Medicare eligible retirees of
    all the Uniformed Services. The improvements have been historic.
    TRICARE for Life and the Senior Pharmacy Program have enormously
    improved the life and health of Medicare Eligible Military Retirees
    their families and survivors. It has been a very successful few years.
        Yet there are still many serious problems to be addressed:
    Full Funding For The Defense Health Program
        The Alliance applauds the subcommittee's role in providing adequate
    funding for the Defense Health Program (DHP) in the past several budget
    cycles. As the cost of health care has risen throughout the country,
    you have provided adequate increases to the DHP to keep pace.
        This is again one of the Alliance's top priorities. With the
    additional costs that have come with the deployments to Southwest Asia,
    Afghanistan and Iraq, we must all stay vigilant against future
    budgetary shortfalls that would damage the quality and availability of
    health care.
        With the authorizers having postponed the Department of Defenses
    suggested fee increases, NMVA is concerned that the budget saving have
    already been adjusted out of the President's proposed budget. NMVA is
    confident that this subcommittee will continue to fund the DHP so that
    there will be no budget shortfalls.
        The National Military and Veterans Alliance urges the subcommittee
    to continue to ensure full funding for the Defense Health Program
    including the full costs of all new programs.
    TRICARE Pharmacy Programs
        DOD is suggesting an increase in co-payments at retail pharmacy
    from $3 to $5 for generic prescriptions, and from $9 to $15 for brand
    drugs. Generic pharmacy mail order prescriptions would drop from $3 to
    $0 to align with military clinics.
        DOD's rationalize is that it costs the government twice as much for
    a drug through the TRICARE Retail Pharmacy program (TRRx) than it does
    for the same drug through the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy Program
    (TMOP). DOD believes the rise in the TRRx co-payments will increase
    revenue and force beneficiaries migrate to the TMOP program, where the
    costs for their prescriptions are lower.
        NMVA may understand the motives for this change, but has concerns
    about how it is being implemented. Often times the retail pharmacy
    network is the only source to immediately fill a prescription, as many
    pharmacy beneficiaries are unable to go to a military clinic for the
    initial prescription. To truly motivate beneficiaries to a shift from
    retail to mail order adjustments need to be made to both generic and
    brand name drugs co-payments.
        Ideally, the NMVA would like to see the reduction in mail order co-
    payments without an increase in co-payments for retail pharmacy, but .
    . . .
        NMVA suggests that if pharmacy co-payments are adjusted that:
      --(1) The higher retail pharmacy co-payments not apply on an initial
            prescription, but on refills of a serial maintenance
            prescription, and
      --(2) If co-payments must be raised on retail pharmacy, that both
            generic and brand name mail order prescriptions be reduced to
            zero $ co-payments.
        The National Military and Veterans Alliance urges the subcommittee
    to adequate fund adjustments to co-payments in support of
    recommendations from defense authorizers.
    TRICARE Standard Improvements
        TRICARE Standard grows in importance with every year that the
    global war on terrorism continues. A growing population of mobilized
    and demobilized Reservists depends upon TRICARE Standard. A growing
    number of younger retirees are more mobile than those of the past, and
    likely to live outside the TRICARE Prime network.
        An ongoing challenge for TRICARE Standard involves creating
    initiatives to convince health care providers to accept TRICARE
    Standard patients. Health care providers are dissatisfied with TRICARE
    reimbursement rates that are tied to Medicare reimbursement levels. The
    Alliance was pleased and relieved by the administration's and Congress'
    recent corrections and improvements in Medicare reimbursement rates,
    which helped the TRICARE program.
        Yet this is not enough. TRICARE Standard is hobbled with a
    reputation and history of low and slow payments as well as what still
    seems like complicated procedures and administrative forms that make it
    harder and harder for beneficiaries to find health care providers that
    will accept TRICARE. Any improvements in the rates paid for Medicare/
    TRICARE should be a great help in this area. Additionally, any further
    steps to simplify the administrative burdens and complications for
    health care providers for TRICARE beneficiaries hopefully will increase
    the number of available providers.
        The Alliance asks the Defense Subcommittee to include language
    encouraging continued increases in TRICARE/Medicare reimbursement
    rates.

    TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan (TRDP)
        The focus of the TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan (TRDP) is to maintain
    the dental health of Uniformed Services retirees and their family
    members. Several years ago we saw the need to modify the TRDP
    legislation to allow the Department of Defense to include some dental
    procedures that had previously not been covered by the program to
    achieve equity with the active duty plan.
        With ever increasing premium costs, NMVA feels that the Department
    should assist retirees in maintaining their dental health by providing
    a government cost-share for the retiree dental plan. With many retirees
    and their families on a fixed income, an effort should be made to help
    ease the financial burden on this population and promote a seamless
    transition from the active duty dental plan to the retiree dental plan
    in cost structure. Additionally, we hope the Congress will enlarge the
    retiree dental plan to include retired beneficiaries who live overseas.
        The NMVA would appreciate this committee's consideration of both
    proposals.

                     NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE HEALTH CARE

    Funding Improved Tricare Reserve Select
        It is being suggested that the TRICARE Reserve Select healthcare
    plan be changed to allow the majority of Selected Reserve participate
    at a 28 percent co-payment level with the balance of the premium being
    paid by the Department of Defense.
        NMVA asks the committee for funding to support a revised TRICARE
    Reserve Select program.
    Mobilized Health Care--Dental Readiness Of Reservists
        The number one problem faced by Reservists being recalled has been
    dental readiness. A model for healthcare would be the TRICARE Dental
    Program, which offers subsidized dental coverage for Selected
    Reservists and self-insurance for SELRES families.
        In an ideal world this would be universal dental coverage. Reality
    is that the services are facing challenges. Premium increases to the
    individual Reservist have caused some junior members to forgo coverage.
    Dental readiness has dropped. The military services are trying to
    determine how best to motivate their Reserve Component members but feel
    compromised by mandating a premium program if Reservists must pay a
    portion of it.
        Services have been authorized to provide dental treatment as well
    as examination, but without funding to support this service. By the
    time many Guard and Reserve are mobilized, their schedule is so short
    fused that the processing dentists don't have time for extensive
    repair.
        The National Military and Veterans Alliance supports funding for
    utilization of Guard and Reserve Dentists to examine and treat
    Guardsmen and Reservists who have substandard dental hygiene. The
    TRICARE Dental Program should be continued, because the Alliance
    believes it has pulled up overall dental readiness.
    Demobilized Dental Care
        Under the revised transitional healthcare benefit plan, Guard and
    Reserve who were ordered to active duty for more than 30 days in
    support of a contingency and have 180 days of transition health care
    following their period of active service.
        Similar coverage is not provided for dental restoration. Dental
    hygiene is not a priority on the battlefield, and many Reserve and
    Guard are being discharged with dental readiness levels much lower than
    when they were first recalled. At a minimum, DOD must restore the
    dental state to an acceptable level that would be ready for
    mobilization, or provide some subsidize for 180 days to permit
    restoration from a civilian source.
        Current policy is a 30 day window with dental care being space
    available at a priority less than active duty families.
        NMVA asks the committee for funding to support a DOD's
    demobilization dental care program. Additional funds should be
    appropriated to cover the cost of TRICARE Dental premiums and co-
    payment for the 6 months following demobilization if DOD is unable to
    do the restoration.

                           OTHER RESERVE/GUARD ISSUES

    MGIB-SR Enhancements
        Approximately 7.8 percent of the enlisted Reservists have a
    Bachelors degree or higher. This makes the Montgomery G.I. Bill for
    Selective Reserves (MGIB-SR) an important recruiting and retention
    tool. With massive troop rotations the Reserve forces can expect to
    have retention shortfalls, unless the government provides incentives
    such as a college education. Education is not only a quality of life
    issue or a recruiting/retention issue it is also a readiness issue.
    Education a Reservist receives enhances their careers and usefulness to
    the military. The ever-growing complexity of weapons systems and
    support equipment requires a force with far higher education and
    aptitude than in previous years.
        The problem with the current MGIB-SR is that the Selected Reserve
    MGIB has failed to maintain a creditable rate of benefits with those
    authorized in Title 38, Chapter 30. Other than cost-of-living
    increases, only two improvements in benefits have been legislated since
    1985. In that year MGIB rates were established at 47 percent of active
    duty benefits. The MGIB-SR rate is 27 percent of the chapter 30
    benefits. Overall the allowance has inched up by only 7 percent since
    its inception, as the cost of education has climbed significantly.
        The NMVA requests appropriations funding to raise the MGIB-SR and
    lock the rate at 50 percent of the active duty benefit. Cost: $25
    million/first year, $1.4 billion over 10.
    Bonuses
        Guard and Reserve component members may be eligible for one of
    three bonuses, prior enlistment bonus, reenlistment bonus and Reserve
    affiliation bonuses for prior service personnel. These bonuses are used
    to keep men and woman in mission critical military occupational
    specialties (MOS) that are experiencing falling numbers or are
    difficult to fill. During their testimony before this committee the
    reserve chiefs addressed the positive impact that bonuses have upon
    retention. This point cannot be understated. The operation tempo,
    financial stress and civilian competition for jobs make bonuses a
    necessary tool for the DOD to fill essential positions. Though the
    current bonus program is useful there is a change that needs to be
    addressed to increase effectiveness.
        The primary requirement for eligibility and payment of a bonus upon
    reenlistment is that the member must have completed less than 14 years
    of total military service and not be paid more than one 6-year bonus or
    two 3-year bonuses under this section. Increasing the eligibility for
    reenlistment bonuses to 20 years of total military service and
    increasing the number of bonuses that can be paid under this section
    could expand the available force pool, as mid-level enlisted Reserve
    members could take advantage of the new bonus criteria. Using a 20 year
    service cutoff instead of a 14 year period would encourage selected
    experienced mid-level subject matter experts to reenlist to established
    high year of tenure or mandatory separation dates and the added
    retained experience would boost each service's retention effort in
    critical skill areas. As each Service uses members of the Selected
    Reserve in different capacities, each Service Secretary may use this
    new authority as required as a force management tool.
        The NMVA would like to see the Reserve chiefs receive the funds and
    the authority to an increase in eligibility from 14 to 20 years and the
    ability for Reservists to receive bonuses while on active duty orders.
    Reserve/Guard Funding
        We are concerned about ongoing DOD initiatives to end ``2 days pay
    for 1 days work,'' and replace it with a plan to provide one-thirtieth
    of a month's pay model, which would include both pay and allowances.
    Even with allowances, pay would be less than the current system. When
    concerns were addressed about this proposal, a retention bonus was the
    suggested solution to keep pay at the current levels. Allowances differ
    between individuals and can be affected by commute distances and even
    zip codes. Certain allowances that are unlikely to be paid uniformly
    include geographic differences, housing variables, tuition assistance,
    travel, and adjustments to compensate for missing health care.
        The NMVA strongly recommends that the Reserve pay system ``2 days
    pay for 1 days work,'' be funded and retained, as is.
        Ensure adequate funding to equip Guard and Reserve at a level that
    allows them to carry out their mission. Do not turn these crucial
    assets over to the active duty force. In the same vein we ask that the
    Congress ensure adequate funding that allows a Guardsman/Reservist to
    complete 48 drills, and 15 annual training days per member, per year.
    DOD has been tempted to expend some of these funds on active duty
    support rather than personnel readiness.
        The NMVA strongly recommends that Reserve Program funding remain at
    sufficient levels to adequately train, equip and support the robust
    Reserve force that has been so critical and successful during our
    Nation's recent major conflicts.

                         ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOMES

        Following Hurricane Kristina, Navy/Marine Corps residents from
    AFRJ-Gulfport were evacuated from the hurricane-devastated campus and
    were moved to the AFRH-Washington DC campus. Dormitories were reopened
    that are in need of refurbishing.
        NMVA urges this subcommittee to fund upgrades to the Washington DC
    facility, and also provide funding to rebuild the Gulfport facility.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the subcommittee the
    Alliance again wishes to emphasize that we are grateful for and
    delighted with the large steps forward that the Congress has affected
    the last few years. We are aware of the continuing concern all of the
    subcommittee's Members have shown for the health and welfare of our
    service personnel and their families. Therefore, we hope that this
    subcommittee can further advance these suggestions in this committee or
    in other positions that the Members hold. We are very grateful for the
    opportunity to submit these issues of crucial concern to our collective
    memberships. Thank you.

        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Seth Benge, the
    Associations for America's Defense. Good morning.

    STATEMENT OF SETH BENGE, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION,
                RESERVE ENLISTED ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF
                THE ASSOCIATIONS FOR AMERICA'S DEFENSE
                (A4AD)
        Mr. Benge. Mr. Chairman, good morning.
        As a sergeant in the Marine Corps Reserve, I was deployed
    last year to Ramadi, Iraq for 7 months, from March to October.
    Presently, I serve as the legislative director for the Reserve
    Enlisted Association. I am testifying on behalf of the
    Associations for America's Defense. A4AD looks at national
    defense, equipment, force structure and policy issues not
    normally addressed by the military support community.
        First, we would like to thank the subcommittee for the
    ongoing stewardship on defense issues at a time of war. Its
    pro-defense, nonpartisan leadership sets the example.
        Support for our troops fighting the global war on terror is
    of primary importance and warrants top priority. The military
    needs to continually train with not only the tactics,
    techniques, and procedures, but with the equipment they will
    use while deployed. It is tempting to focus only on those that
    are in the fight. And they should be given what they need to
    complete the mission. But before any soldier gets to combat,
    they first must be trained, and we should continue to follow
    the axiom, ``train as you fight.''
        If we could buy enough equipment for units before
    deployment, the commanders would have a better chance to
    evaluate new gear and give our forces time to become more
    proficient in its use. Prior training frees soldiers to engage
    in more important aspect of their mission. Armored Humvees,
    personal body armor, and improvise explosive device (IED)
    jamming devices are saving lives. But we would rather stop the
    IEDs before they explode. I saw vehicles with their front ends
    blown off, or hit by rocket powered grenades (RPG), with
    relatively minor injuries to the crew. Conversely, the
    terrorists have tried to overcome the armor by larger
    explosives, and changing their tactics.
        Having Iraqis tell us the location of the IEDs, individual
    soldiers spotting them, or explosive ordnance disposal teams
    finding and clearing them, are the most common and preferred
    methods of defense against roadside bombs. Trying to master a
    vehicle can be a distraction from these important measures.
        Equipment is only a tool, and is far more effective when
    soldiers are given the time in advance to develop the skills to
    use it. A vehicle that weighs several tons more than an
    unarmored one drives differently. It turns, accelerates, and
    decelerates, and stops differently. The skills required to
    operate this equipment need to be learned before driving out
    the front gate of a base in a foreign land.
        Individual movement with personal gear should be a matter
    of muscle memory brought on by months of use. Just moving in
    and out of an armored vehicle with full gear and weapons is not
    the same as simply getting out of an unarmored Humvee with just
    a flack and Kevlar on. Running down streets or climbing over
    walls, or going into and out of houses, is also different in
    full combat gear. Without practice, it is easy to get tangled,
    tripped up, slowed down, and become an easy target.
        Recently, there was some debate in the media regarding
    marines being issued even more body armor; specifically, side
    plates. Many troops feel that the 70-plus pounds of gear,
    armor, and ammo, that today's marines and soldiers wear, is too
    much. These troops need to wear the gear earlier to adjust.
    Otherwise, it may not be worn or shed in the heat of battle.
        Another glaring area is with communication equipment.
    Currently, we have small handheld radios used to speak among
    individuals. But we didn't receive these until we were in the
    country for several weeks. In an environment where the enemy
    can appear and disappear into the crowd, where there are
    firefights around the corner, the ability to share information
    horizontally among the soldiers is as important as the ability
    to send information up the chain of command. Combat is not the
    time or place for hands-on training with such important tools.
        In the Guard and Reserve this training is especially
    difficult because they have become increasingly underequipped.
    With the shift to have these troops train, mobilize, deploy, so
    that they can be more operational, we need to assure that the
    Guard and Reserve also have the proper funding for equipment.
        As you continue to buy new equipment and start to put money
    into resetting the force, I would urge the subcommittee to
    remember that victory in combat begins the moment that young
    men and women step off of a bus and into basic training.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this
    subcommittee.
        Senator Inouye [presiding]. I thank you very much, sir.
        Mr. Benge. Thank you, Senator.
        [The statement follows:]

                        Prepared Statement of Seth Benge

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the committee, the
    Associations for America's Defense (A4AD) are very grateful for the
    invitation to testify before you about our views and suggestions
    concerning current and future issues facing the defense appropriations.
        The Association for America's Defense is an adhoc group of 11
    military and veteran associations that have concerns about national
    security issues that are not normally addressed by either The Military
    Coalition, or the National Military and Veterans Alliance. Among the
    issues that are addressed are equipment, end strength, force structure,
    and defense policy. Collectively, we represent about members, who are
    serving our Nation, or who have done so in the past.
        A4AD, also, cooperatively works with other associations, who
    provide input while not including their association name to the
    membership roster.

                  CURRENT VERSUS FUTURE; ISSUES FACING DEFENSE

        The Associations for America's Defense would like to thank this
    subcommittee for the on-going stewardship that it has demonstrated on
    issues of defense. At a time of war, its pro-defense and non-partisan
    leadership continues to set the example.
        Lessons learned from the war have only fueled the debate on what is
    needed for National Defense. Your committee faces numerous issues and
    decisions. You are challenged at weighing people against technology,
    and where to invest dollars. Multi-generations of weapons are being
    touted, forcing a competition for limited budgetary resources.
        Members of A4AD group are concerned that hasty recommendations
    about U.S. Defense policy could place national security at risk.
    Careful study is needed to make the right choice. A4AD is pleased that
    Congress and this subcommittee continue oversight in these decisions.
        Pentagon criticism is that our Armed Forces are archaic; structured
    for a Cold War. Yet it has been those legacy systems that have brought
    success in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Are Business Practices Practical?
        The 2005 QDR emphasizes the needs of the area combat commanders,
    and seeks a ``demand driven'' approach to ``reduce unnecessary program
    redundancy, improve joint interoperability and streamline acquisition
    and budgeting processes.'' In industry ``demand driven'' flow is called
    Just-in-Time (JIT) management.
        JIT attacks waste in the manufacturing process, working to identify
    and reduce or eliminate excess set-up and lead times, inventory, and
    scrap by exposing problems and bottlenecks and streamlining production.
        DOD's JIT concept is to reduce the amount and length in the
    logistics tail. The idea is to minimize investment, and get the bullet
    and spare parts to the troops on the line as they need them. The
    Pentagon wants to eliminate a ``steel mountain'' of supplies.
        Industry has been trying to perfect JIT for 30 years. A few
    industries have been able to use it, in others it causes hiccups. The
    risk is a shut down in production, and the more complex the system, the
    higher the risk. In many cases, the inventorying costs are shifted from
    producer to supplier to stock parts at a different site, which
    increases the costs of spare parts. Shipping expenses go up, as
    shortages tend to be ``overnighted'' when the scheduling goes haywire.
    In most cases, the bottom line is a more expensive product, which for
    the Pentagon would mean a higher DOD expense.
        The Pentagon has suggested the reduction of redundancy by
    consolidation and the elimination of military positions which would be
    replaced by contractors. The question that arises is ``What are the
    elements that ensure successful implementation outcomes between the
    government purchasing offices and various commercial contractors?'' If
    outcomes become less predictable the risk is not to contractors but to
    soldiers, sailors, marines, and airman and the war effort.
    Dependence On Foreign Partnership
        The QDR highlights DOD's move ``from a large institutional force to
    a future force that is tailored for expeditionary operations.'' The QDR
    also states that ``the future force must be more tailored, more
    accessible to the joint commander, and better configured to operate
    with other agencies and international partners in complex operations.''
    and that ``combatant commanders will expand the concept of contracting
    volunteers . . . ''
        Echoing the QDR, Gordon England, the deputy defense secretary
    stated in March at the Defense Security Cooperation Agency Worldwide
    Conference that in order ``to meet the diverse security challenges of
    the future, DOD must strengthen and adapt long-term alliances, as well
    as form relationships with new international partners, enabling them to
    enhance their capabilities.''
        "Effective multinational efforts are essential to solve the
    problems we face together,'' England added.
        The Navy seeks a ``1,000-ship Navy.'' The Chief of Naval
    Operations, Admiral Mike Mullen, called for ``a fleet-in-being . . .
    comprised of all freedom-loving nations, standing watch over the seas,
    standing watch over each other.'' Mullen's concept is to build on
    existing international security agreements to extend the global reach
    of sea power. ``We need to be a team player, a leader, for that 1,000-
    ship Navy and a citizen in good standing for the city at sea,'' he
    said.
        The risk of basing a national security policy on foreign interests
    and good world citizenship is increasing uncertainty because the United
    States does not necessarily control our foreign partners, countries
    whose objectives may differ with from own. This is more an exercise of
    consensus building rather than security integration. Alliances should
    be viewed as a tool and a force multiplier, but not the foundation of
    National Security.
        While an idea or a vision can be a catalyst to enthusiasm, this
    should not lead directly to change. Ideas should be tested and be
    judged not by a logic structure but by an outcome. The United States
    will always need a minimum force structure that permits us to defend
    ourselves.

                      IS THERE A PLACE FOR LEGACY WEAPONS?

        A4AD suggests that existing legacy weapons be shifted from the
    active component to the Reserve. The last war's legacy may be the next
    war's necessity. Before 9/11 the Navy wanted to eliminate its USNR CB
    battalions as being a Cold War legacy. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, not
    only is the integrated Active and Reserve CB force national rebuilding,
    but is also involved in explosive disposal. In both the Army and the
    Marine Corps, artillery units are being retrained in civil affairs, but
    if military conflict breaks out in Korea, the units will be needed with
    their artillery.
        Both the Pentagon and the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget
    for the United States have suggested cutting $62 billion from what has
    been labeled as Cold War weapons programs. While the Pentagon
    emphasizes the need to seek new technologies, the Task Force wants to
    use this ``dividend'' for homeland security, halt the spread of nuclear
    weapons.
        The F-22 fighter, Joint Strike Fighter, the Virginia-class
    submarine, the DD(X) destroyer, the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft and the C-
    130J cargo plane are just examples of new technology that has been
    labeled as legacy weapons. The key is that these weapons are needed to
    replace earlier aging weapons systems.

                                AGING EQUIPMENT

        Crash Highlights An Aging Fleet.--A giant C-5A Air Force cargo
    plane that crashed and broke apart while making an emergency landing at
    Dover Air Force Base was part of an aging fleet whose future is being
    debated. The 21-year-old aircraft that crashed was one that's been
    modernized.
        The U.S. Military has a number of aging air frames, besides the C-
    5A, the Air Force has the F-15 fighter. The Navy and the Marines are
    flying C-9 transports and H-46 helicopters. GAO Report 01-163 reported
    that tactical Aircraft modernization plans would not reduce the average
    age of these aircraft. Nearly 5 years of war have just added to the
    wear and fatigue.
    Tactical Air
        The rapidly aging F-15 Eagle first flew in the 1970s. In mock
    combat against MiG, Sukhoi and Mirage fighters, foreign air forces have
    scored unexpected successes against the Eagles. Modern, Russian-
    designed ``double-digit'' surface-to-air missile systems (SAMs) now
    available on the export market have also caught up to the F-15 in
    capability. New air dominance platforms are urgently needed. The F/A-22
    Raptor and the Joint Strike F-35 fighters represent vital and
    complementary capabilities must be fully funded.
        The recent Quadrennial Defense Review has cut the Air Force's
    planned F-22 buy in half--from 381 to 183 fighters. To compensate, the
    Air Force will be forced to extend the service lives of other fighters
    and depend more on advanced unmanned systems. Congress should reinstate
    full procurement of 381 fighters for a minimum deployment of one
    squadron for each of the service's 10 Air Expeditionary Forces.
        Air National Guard needs E-8C, A-10, F-16 block 42 re-engining.
        A4AD supports modernization of critical USMC aviation capabilities
    available through MV-22, JSF-STOVL, and HLR programs. The JSF
    development and support of constructive cost-control practices should
    be fully funded for both the Navy and Marine Corps.
        The Navy and Marine Corps are also approaching aging aircraft in a
    different fashion. They are transferring tactical F-18 aircraft from
    the Reserve to the Active Component. This will leave Reserve Component
    units without hardware this will either reduce readiness of Reserve
    operational units, or cause units to be disbanded.
    Airlift
        Air Mobility Command assets fly 36,478 hours per month and
    participate in major operations including earthquake and hurricane
    relief, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation
    Noble Eagle, and SOUTHCOM. Their contributions in moving cargo and
    passengers are absolutely indispensable to American warfighters in the
    Global War on Terrorism. Both Air Force and Naval airframes and air
    crew are being stressed by these lift missions.
        As the U.S. military continues to become more expeditionary, it
    will require more airlift. DOD should complete the planned buy of 180
    C-17s, and add an additional 60 aircraft at a rate of 15 aircraft per
    year to account to ensure an adequate airlift force for the future and
    allow for attrition--C-17s are being worn out at a higher rate than
    anticipated in the Global War on Terrorism.
        DOD should also continue with a joint multi-year procurement of C-
    130Js and press ahead with a C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-
    engining Program test to see where airlift funds may be best allocated.
        The Navy and Marine Corps need C-40A replacements for the C-9B
    aircraft. The Navy requires Navy Unique Fleet Essential Airlift. The
    maximum range for the C-40A is approximately 1,500 miles more than the
    C-9 with a greater airlift capacity. The C-40A, a derivative of the
    737-700C is a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certified, while
    the aging C-9 fleet is not compliant with either future global
    navigation requirements or noise abatement standards that restrict
    flights into European airfields. Twenty-two aircraft remain to be
    replaced.
    Tankers
        In need for air refueling is reconfirmed on a daily basis in
    worldwide DOD operations. A significant number of tankers are old and
    plagued with structural problems. The Air Force would like to retire as
    many as 131 of the Eisenhower-era KC-135E tankers by the end of the
    decade.
        The controversy that surrounded the KC-767 tanker-lease proposal
    has delayed acquisition of a new tanker. DOD and Congress must work
    together to replacement of these aircraft. A replacement could come in
    the form of a hybrid tanker/airlifter aircraft, which when produced
    could ``swing'' from one mission to the other as required. Congress
    should also look at re-engining a portion of the KC-135 fleet as a
    short-term fix until newer platforms come online.
        Procurement F-22, F-35, MV-22A, C40A and a replacement for the KC-
    135 needs to be accelerated and modernized, and mobility requirements
    need to be reported upon.
    Navy Fleet Size
        The number of ships in the fleet is dropping to 281 ships. The
    Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mike Mullen, has set the target for
    the new fleet at 313 ships.
        The Administration procurement rate has been too low.
        A4AD favors a fleet no smaller than 313 ships because of an added
    flexibility to respond to emerging threats. Congress should explore
    options to current methods of ship design, configuration, and
    shipbuilding that have created billion dollar destroyers.

                                  OTHER ISSUES

    Increasing End Strength
        Op tempo and deployment rotation will begin to wear. The official
    position of rotation of 1 year deployed for 3 years duty for active
    duty and 1 year in 6 for the Guard and Reserve are targets, but not yet
    reality. Increases are needed in the active component to reduce the
    building stress, and to reduce the need for Guard and Reserve call-up.
    Any unfunded end-strength increases would put readiness at risk.
        The A4AD supports funding increases in support of the end strength
    boosts of the Active Duty Component of the Army and Marine Corps that
    have been recommended by Defense authorizers.
        A4AD also hopes that this subcommittee would include language
    reminding the Department of Defense that once appropriated that each
    service should proactively recruit to try to attain these numbers.
        Now is not the time to be cutting the Guard and Reserve. Incentives
    should be utilized to attract prior service members into a growing
    Reserve. Additionally, a moratorium on changes to end strength of the
    Guard and Reserve should be put into place until Commission on the
    Guard and Reserve can report back to Congress with recommendations.
        The A4AD would like to also put a freeze on reductions to the Guard
    and Reserve manning level, holding to the fiscal year 2006 levels.
    Regeneration/Resetting of Equipment
        A4AD would like to thank this committee for the regeneration money
    that was included in the supplemental.
        Aging equipment, high usage rates, austere conditions in Iraq, and
    combat losses are affecting future readiness. Equipment is being used
    at 5 to 10 times the programmed rate.
        Additionally, to provide the best protection possible for soldiers
    and marines in the combat theater, many units have left their equipment
    behind for follow-on units, and are returning with no equipment.
    Without equipment on which to train after de-mobilization, readiness
    will become an issue.
        The Army, Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Marines and Marine
    Forces Reserve need continued funding by Congress for equipment
    replacement.
    Counter-measures to Improvised Explosive Devices
        A4AD would like to commend the committee for supporting enhanced
    countermeasures for air and ground troops now deployed. For ground
    troops, the biggest threat to safety continues to be the improvised
    explosive device or IED.
        Cost effective solutions that can provide an enhanced degree of
    safety do exist, however, in the form of electronic countermeasures.
    These devices work in one of two ways: either by pre-detonating an IED
    or by preventing the detonation through jamming of the signal. Officers
    returning from the field indicate the better choice is pre-detonation.
    Insurgents seem to be able to adapt to jamming technologies.
        Also, insurgents can overcome armored protection by increasing the
    explosive payload. With the right technology, it could be possible to
    detonate these weapons in the workshops.
        We encourage the committee to look at specifying additional funds
    for the purpose of researching, purchasing and deploying more
    electronic countermeasures for ground troops. In this way we can
    provide a greater degree of safety to all of the troops facing the IED
    threat, no matter what type of vehicle they may be operating.
        Continued emphasis is needed for the procurement of sufficient
    quantities of electronic countermeasures to protect personnel deployed
    in the battle space.
    Aircraft Survivability Equipment
        Air crews face non-traditional threats used by non-conventional
    forces and deserve the best available warning and countermeasure
    equipment available to provide the greatest degree of safety possible.
    The majority of funds have been expended on fixed aircraft protection;
    approximately 75 percent of U.S. air losses have been rotary wing.
        A4AD hopes that the committee will continue to support the purchase
    and deployment of warning and countermeasures systems with an emphasis
    on rotary wing aircraft across all of the services and insure that the
    latest and most advanced versions of these protections are made
    available to all units now deployed or slated for deployment in the
    future--be they Active Duty, Guard or Reserve.
    Maintaining the National Guard and Reserve Equipment List
        A single equipment appropriation for each service would not
    guarantee that the National Guard and Reserve Components would get any
    new equipment. The National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA)
    is vital to ensuring that the Guard and Reserve has some funding to
    procure essential equipment that has not been funded by the services.
    Without congressional oversight, dollars intended for Guard and Reserve
    equipment might be redirected to Active Duty non-funded requirements.
    This will lead to decreased readiness.
        This move is reminiscent of the attempt by DOD to consolidate all
    pay and O&M accounts into one appropriation per service. Any action by
    the Pentagon to circumvent congressional oversight should be resisted.
        A4AD asks this committee to continue to provide appropriations
    against unfunded National Guard and Reserve equipment requirements. To
    appropriate funds to Guard and Reserve equipment would help emphasize
    that the Active Duty is exploring dead-ends by suggesting the transfer
    of Reserve equipment away from the Reservists.
    Unfunded Equipment Requirements. (The services are not listed in
            priority order.)

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Agency                               Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Air Force:
        F/A-22 and F/35 Joint Strike Fighter................  ..............
        Accelerate C-17 and C-130J procurement..............  ..............
        Update Tanker Fleet.................................  ..............
        E-10 multi-sensor Command and Control Aircraft......  ..............
        Space Radar & Transformational Satellite (TSAT)       ..............
         system.............................................
    Air Force Reserve:
        C-5A ADS............................................            11.8
        LAIRCM (Large Aircraft I/R Counter Measures)........           228.5
        F-16 ALR-69A........................................            18.8
        C-130 APN-241 Radar.................................            21.0
        MC-130E CARA/ETCAS..................................            14.6
    Air Guard:
        Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS).................           270.8
        A-10 SATCOM Radio...................................             6.3
        KC-135 Night Vision Compatibility Lighting..........            47.5
        C-130, C-5, C-17 LAIRCM/C-5 ADS.....................             656
        F-16, A-10, C-130, C-5 Simulators...................  ..............
    Army:
        M88 Improved Recovery Vehicles......................           331.9
        C-47 Chinook Helicopters............................           331.5
        UH-60 Blackhawk replacement Helicopters.............              71
    Army Reserve:
        Light Medium Tactical Vehicles [LMTV]...............             306
        Medium Tractors.....................................             304
        Night Vision systems................................  ..............
        Chemical/Bio/Radiological detection/alarm systems...              .8
        Medical Equipment...................................               3
    Army Guard:
        High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMHWV).           3,285
        Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles..................           4,582
        Single Channel Ground Air Radio Sys (SINCGARS                    222
         replaces VRC-12)...................................
        Small Arms..........................................              96
        Night Vision (AN/PVS-14/PAS-13).....................           1,439
    Marine Corps:
        V-22 Osprey Aircraft in fiscal year 2007 (2)........             154
        (APN) KC-130J Aircraft Procurement (8)..............           678.7
        (PMC) High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS)           170.7
        (PMC) M777A1 Lightweight 155MM Howitzer (LW 155)                12.4
         Program............................................
    Reserve Marine Corps:
        (OMMCR)--Infantry Combat Equipment (ICE)--Reserves..            11.7
        Field Medical Equipment (FFME)......................             3.5
        Shelter and Tents (Command Post Large Tactical                   2.2
         Shelter)...........................................
        Shelters and Tents (Ultra Lightweight Camouflage Net             5.3
         System.............................................
        Individual First Aid Kit (IFAK).....................             3.5
        Infantry Combat Equipment (ICE).....................            11.7
        Portable Tent Lighting..............................             3.5
    Navy:
        Improvised Explosives Device Countermeasure.........            16.8
        MH-60S/MH-60R procurement...........................             140
        Lease (3) commercial Scan Eagle (SHUAV) Systems.....            39.7
        Expeditionary Riverine Funding......................              20
        Accelerate (2) LCS..................................             520
    Naval Reserve:
        Naval Coastal Warfare Table of Allowance Equipment..            24.3
        Explosive Ordnance Disposal Table of Allowance                   2.4
         Equipment..........................................
        NCF Tactical Vehicles and Support Equipment.........            30.1
        C-40 A Combo cargo/passenger Airlift................              76
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   conclusion
        A4AD is a working group of military and veteran associations
    looking beyond personnel issues to the broader issues of National
    Defense.
        Cuts in manpower and force structure, simultaneously in the Active
    and Reserve Component are concerns in that it can have a detrimental
    effect on surge and operational capability.
        This testimony is an overview, and expanded data on information
    within this document can be provided upon request.
        Thank you for your ongoing support of the Nation, the Armed
    Services, and the fine young men and women who defend our country.
    Please contact us with any questions.

        Senator Inouye. The next witness will be Lieutenant General
    Dennis McCarthy.

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DENNIS M. McCARTHY,
                UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS (RETIRED),
                EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE OFFICERS
                ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
        General McCarthy. Senator Inouye, thank you very much. And
    to the chairman and the members of the subcommittee, I
    appreciate the opportunity to give a brief statement.
        The magnificent contributions of over 500,000 members of
    the Reserve components have enabled our Nation to conduct the
    first extended war to be fought with an all volunteer force.
    When the concept of an all volunteer force was originated in
    the 1970s, it was considered primarily a peacetime solution.
    Most believed that an extended war would force the Nation to
    return to the draft. Instead, no draft has been necessary
    because the Reserve components have surged forward to augment
    and reinforce the Active component. In a very real sense, the
    Reserve components have saved the country from a draft.
        The Reserve component that surged in the past 5 years was
    not formed after September 11. It was formed in the 1990s based
    on the investments made by the Congress and by the dedication
    of its leaders, both Active and Reserve. The condition of the
    Reserve today is different than it was 5 years ago. In some
    ways, it is better. Almost every leader is a combat-tested
    veteran, and experience and confidence abound.
        In other ways, however, the condition is worse. Equipment
    has been destroyed, worn out, or left overseas. Financial
    resources are stressed. And although every defense leader has
    recognized the need to reset the force, my concern is that we
    are not putting sufficient resources toward resetting the
    Reserve force. I see a number of ominous signs.
        First, funding for Reserve training has been cut. Aviation
    units of several services are transferring aircraft from the
    Reserve component to the Active component, and decommissioning
    or putting into cadre status squadrons that flew just recently
    in combat. There is a widespread lack of equipment needed for
    homeland security and consequence management; primarily,
    engineering and vehicles. And there continues to be a serious
    lack of interoperable communications equipment.
        The rationale for these conditions is that current
    operations must be funded first, and that maybe the Reserve
    should just take a few years off and rest up. I believe that
    approach is fatally flawed. The caliber of young men and women
    that we have today are not going to sit around empty training
    centers and twiddle their thumbs because they do not have the
    equipment or funds to train. If the country is not interested
    in funding them, they will find other things to do.
        History teaches a valuable lesson. At the end of the Korean
    War, just about everybody in the Guard and Reserve was a combat
    veteran. And the units were probably at the high water mark of
    their combat capability. Ten or so years later, in the 1960s,
    those same units were in very poor shape. The country lacked
    confidence in them, called them ``weekend warriors,'' and used
    the draft to fill out the Active force.
        If we do not reset the Reserve force starting now, we will
    begin the trip down the same road. The next time the Nation
    needs its Guard and Reserve, whether at home or abroad, will
    they be the combat-capable citizen warriors of 2006, or will
    they be the next generation of weekend warriors? Put another
    way, will the Reserves be as ready for the next crisis as they
    were for this one? If they are not, is the Nation ready for a
    draft?
        These are tough questions, and I understand the competing
    priorities. I thank you and the subcommittee for your
    willingness to take action on them. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, General McCarthy. And I can
    assure you that my colleagues and I are very sensitive to the
    questions you just raised.
        General McCarthy. Thank you, sir. We know you are.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Dennis M. McCarthy

        The Reserve Officers Association of the United States (ROA) is a
    professional association of commissioned and warrant officers of our
    Nation's seven uniformed services, and their spouses. ROA was founded
    in 1922 during the drawdown years following the end of World War I. It
    was formed as a permanent institution dedicated to National Defense,
    with a goal to teach America about the dangers of unpreparedness. When
    chartered by Congress in 1950, the act established the objective of ROA
    to: ``. . . support and promote the development and execution of a
    military policy for the United States that will provide adequate
    National Security.'' The mission of ROA is to advocate strong Reserve
    Components and national security, and to support Reserve officers in
    their military and civilian lives.
        The association's 75,000 members include Reserve and Guard
    soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and coast guardsmen who frequently
    serve on active duty to meet critical needs of the uniformed services
    and their families. ROA's membership also includes officers from the
    U.S. Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration who often are first responders during national disasters
    and help prepare for homeland security. ROA is represented in each
    State with 55 departments plus departments in Latin America, the
    District of Columbia, Europe, the Far East, and Puerto Rico. Each
    department has several chapters throughout the State. ROA has more than
    450 chapters worldwide.
        ROA is a member of The Military Coalition where it co-chairs the
    Tax and Social Security Committee. ROA is also a member of the National
    Military/Veterans Alliance. Overall, ROA works with 75 military,
    veterans and family support organizations.

                                 ROA PRIORITIES

        The Reserve Officers Association calendar year 2006 legislative
    priorities are:
      --Full funding of equipment and training requirements for the
            National Guard and Reserves.
      --Providing adequate resource and authorities to support the current
            recruiting and retention requirements of the National Guard and
            Reserves.
    Issues To Help Fund, Equip, and Train
        Fully fund Military Pay Appropriation to guarantee a minimum of 48
    drills and 2 weeks training for each selected Reservist in every
    service.
        Sustain authorization and appropriation to National Guard and
    Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) to permit flexibility for Reserve
    Chiefs in support of mission and readiness needs.
        Optimize funding for additional training, preparation and
    operational support.
        Regenerate the Reserve Components (RC) with current field, combat,
    and communication compatible equipment.
        Keep Active and Reserve personnel and Operation and Maintenance
    funding separate.
        Equip Reserve Component members with equivalent personal protection
    as Active Component Forces.
    Issues To Assist Recruiting and Retention
        Support incentives for affiliation, reenlistment, retention and
    continuation in the RC. Allow RC bonus payments through 20 years of
    service.
                Pay and Compensation
        Differential pay for federal employees.
        Professional pay for RC medical professionals.
        Eliminate the one-thirtieth rule for Aviation Career Incentive Pay,
    Career Enlisted Flyers Incentive Pay, Diving Special Duty Pay, and
    Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay.
                Education
        Increase MGIB-Selected Reserve to 47 percent of MGIB-Active.
                Health Care
        Expand the 28 percent co-payment to TRICARE Reserve Select to
    unemployed and uninsured Ready Reservists.
        Extend military coverage for restorative dental care for up to 180
    days following deployment.
                Spouse Support
        Repeal the SBP-Dependency Indemnity Clause (DIC) offset.
        ROA's goals come from our members as they identify problems or
    suggest improvements to the situations they encounter. Since we are not
    in the Department of Defense's chain of command we provide a source for
    candid discourse without fear of retaliation. ROA will continue to
    support the troops in the field in any way we can.
          national guard and reserve equipment and personnel accounts
    Resetting the Force
        Resetting or reconstitution of the force is the process to restore
    people, aircraft and equipment to a high state of readiness following a
    period of higher-than-normal, or surge, operations. The purpose of
    force reconstitution is to restore optimum combat power.
        Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom are consuming the
    force's equipment. Wear and tear is at a rate many times higher then
    planned. Battle damage expends additional resources. Factors affecting
    equipment availability:
      --Equipment Left in Theater.--Leaving equipment behind for follow is
            practical. Yet, it also affects the returning units from which
            the equipment was the original allowance. Future training is
            downgraded, directly affecting readiness.
      --Repair.--Encompasses cost of parts, stand-down of assets while
            waiting for parts, scheduling backlogs for added contingency
            equipment into a normal repair cycle. This may require hiring
            additional personnel to reduce scheduling overloads.
      --Depot Level Maintenance.--Factors in delayed scheduled maintenance
            resulting in aircraft and equipment being in violation of
            maintenance requirements during engagements.
      --Cannibalization.--Can be commonplace as units strip essential parts
            and components from already ``broken'' equipment in order to
            spare parts. This practice can lead to equipment loss.
      --Replace.--Loss of inventory that can't be salvaged and must be
            replaced must be considered as part of the reconstitution
            effort.
    Personnel
        Training.--When Reserve Component personnel participate in an
    operation they are focused on the needs of the particular mission,
    which may not include everything required to maintain qualification
    status in their military occupation specialty (MOS, AFSC, NEC).
        There are many different aspects of training that are affected.
      --Skills that must be refreshed for specialty.
      --Training needed for upgrade but delayed.
      --Ancillary training missed.
      --Professional military education needed to stay competitive.
      --Professional continuing education requirements for single-managed
            career fields and other certified or licensed specialties
            required annually.
      --Graduate education in business related areas to address force
            transformation and induce officer retention.
        Loss.--There are particular challenges that occur to the force when
    a loss occurs during a mobilization or operation and depending on the
    specialty this can be a particularly critical requirement that must be
    met.
      --Recruiting may require particular attention to enticing certain
            specialties or skills to fill critical billets.
      --Minimum levels of training (84 days basic, plus specialty
            training).
      --Retraining may be required due to force leveling as emphasis is
            shifted within the service to meet emerging requirements.
    End Strength
        The ROA would like to also put a freeze on reductions to the Guard
    and Reserve manning levels. ROA urges this subcommittee to fund to last
    year's levels.
        In a time of war and the highest OPTEMPO in recent history, it is
    wrong to make cuts to the end strength of the Reserve Components. The
    Commission on National Guard and Reserve will be examining Reserve
    Force Structure, and will make recommendations as to size in its report
    to the Congress in March 2007.
        As Congress maintained the Army Guard strengths, it is essential
    that the end strength of the Army Reserve should not be cut either. We
    urge you to fund the USAR at 205,000.
        To meet the challenge of changes in end strength, the AF Reserve
    Command has prioritized all of its unit and IMA personnel positions.
    Until recommendations are made by the Commission on the Guard and
    Reserve, end strength should not be changed.
        The Navy's Reserve has been cut over 18 percent in the last 5 years
    and by half in the last 15 years. We need to pause to permit force
    planning and strategy to catch-up with budget reductions.
    Readiness
        Readiness is a product of many factors, including the quality of
    officers and enlisted, full staffing, extensive training and exercises,
    well-maintained weapons and authorized equipment, efficient procedures,
    and the capacity to operate at a fast tempo. The pace of wartime
    operations has a major impact on service members.
        The Defense Department does not attempt to keep all active units at
    the C-1 level. The risk is without resetting the force returning Active
    and Reserve units will be C-4 or lower because of missing equipment,
    and without authorized equipment their training levels will
    deteriorate.

                             NONFUNDED ARMY RESERVE

        Funding must be increased across the board for the Department of
    Defense. Shortfalls are especially glaring relative to the Army and the
    Army RC components of the Reserve and Guard. We urge substantial
    increases in funding for all these Army entities.
        If the USAR is to be an operational force in a high OPTEMPO then an
    investment must be made. The AR will have a deficit of over $632
    million for fiscal year 2007 in its Personnel ($446 million) and
    Operations and Maintenance ($186 million) accounts.
        The AR is projecting a long-term shortfall of nearly 5,000 company
    grade officers, yet its budget for the Army Reserve Basic Officer
    Course, which trains both new officers entering the Army Reserve and
    the Army National Guard, is funded for about 850 of the 2,300 AR and
    ARNG officers programmed for attendance. Similar major shortfalls will
    occur in recruiting and retention incentives ($322 million),
    sustainment training ($41 million), tuition assistance ($20 million),
    and in a variety of programs related to recruiter support ($14
    million), family ($9 million), marketing program ($11 million) and
    chaplain support ($8 million), and other areas as well.
    New Usar Equipment Strategy--How It Works
        The Army Reserve has developed a new strategy to make the most
    effective and efficient use of its equipment. The new strategy supports
    the Army Force Generation and the Army Reserve Expeditionary Force
    (AREF) management systems. It ensures the best available equipment is
    provided to Army Reserve soldiers where and when they need it, as they
    move through the pre-mobilization training phase of the AREF cycle
    toward mobilization and deployment.
        Individual equipment, such as weapons and masks, will be maintained
    at unit stations, with enough of a unit's major items--trucks,
    forklifts, etc.--to allow for effective training and to support
    homeland defense requirements.
        In the new model, units will be moved to the equipment located at
    the training sites, rather than moving equipment to the units. Creating
    centrally located equipment pools to support directed and focused
    training, will enable the Army Reserve to yield efficiencies in
    resourcing and maintaining its equipment.
                       ARMY RESERVE EQUIPMENT PRIORITIES

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Equipment                             Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Procurement of equipment to support modularity:
        Light-medium trucks (25 percent compatibility)......             306
        Medium tractors (50 percent compatibility)..........             305
        Night vision systems................................  ..............
        Chemical/biological/radiological detection/alarm                   8
         systems............................................
        Medical Equipment...................................               3
    Sustainment:
        Sustainment of depot maintenance levels.............  ..............
        Recapitalization of tactical truck inventory........  ..............
        Army Reserve tactical maintenance contract labor to   ..............
         reduce mobilization and training equipment backlogs
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     AIR FORCE RESERVE EQUIPMENT PRIORITIES

        ROA continues to support military aircraft Multi-Year Procurement
    (MYP) for more C-17s and more C-130Js for USAF. The Air Force Reserve
    (AFR) is working to continue as an interoperable member of the Total
    Air Force to support mission requirements of the joint warfighter. To
    achieve interoperability in the future, the Air Force Reserve top five
    priorities for ``Other Equipment'' are:
    C-5A Airlift Defensive System (ADS)--$11,800,000
        Install ADS systems onto AFRC C-5As at Lackland and Wright-
    Patterson AFBs where current aircraft do not have defense systems
    against IR threats.
    Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM)--$228,500,000
        Program of record for Mobility Air Forces (MAF) aircraft. The
    system increases crew-warning time, decreases false alarm rates and
    automatically counters advanced infrared missile systems. The missile
    warning subsystem will use multiple sensors to provide full spatial
    coverage for C-5B, C-17, C-130 H2/H3/J and HC-130s.
    Advanced Threat Warning/Targeting System (ALR-69A-V) for F-16B30/32--
            $18,800,000
        Program of record for MAF and Air Force Special Operations Forces.
    The world's first all-digital radar warning receiver (RWR), the ALR-
    69A(V) features capabilities previously unattainable in a tactical RWR:
    suppression of enemy air defenses, easy cross-platform integration, and
    enhanced spectral and spatial coverage for high-sensitivity detection
    in dense signal environments.
    Low Power Color Radar (AN/APN-241) for C-130--$21,000,000
        Program of record for C-130 Avionics Modernization Program. Radar
    capabilities include high-resolution ground mapping that enables
    accurate low-level navigation and precision aerial drops.
    Enhanced Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (ETCAS) for MC-
            130--$14,600,000
        Install ETCAS (APN-241) all weather, color radar on MC-130s.

                       NAVY RESERVE EQUIPMENT PRIORITIES

    Naval Coastal Warfare Table of Allowance Equipment--$24,300,000
        Replacements of over-aged and unreliable tactical vehicles, CSCE
    and communications equipment are needed to improve operational support
    of Combatant Commanders.
    Explosive Ordnance Disposal Table of Allowance Equipment--$2,400,000
        Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Reserve personnel require dive
    and protective gear, up-armored vehicles, boats and communications gear
    to improve operational support of Combatant Commanders.
    NCF Tactical Vehicles and Support Equipment--$30,100,000
        Tactical vehicles, CESE and communications equipment are needed to
    improve operational support of Combatant Commanders.
    C-40 A Combo cargo/passenger Airlift--$75,000,000
        The Navy requires a Navy Unique Fleet Essential Airlift Replacement
    Aircraft. This aircraft was designated as the C-40A and will replace
    the aging C-9 fleet. The maximum range for the C-40A is approximately
    1,500 miles more than the C-9.
        The C-40A, a derivative of the 737-700C is a Federal Aviation
    Administration (FAA) certified, high performance, fixed wing aircraft
    that will accommodate 121 passengers, or eight pallets of cargo (40,000
    lbs), or a combination configuration consisting of 3 pallets and 70
    passengers. The Navy's aging C-9 fleet is not compliant with either
    future global navigation requirements or noise abatement standards that
    restrict flights into European airfields. Twenty-two aircraft remain to
    be replaced.

                   MARINE CORPS RESERVE EQUIPMENT PRIORITIES

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Equipment                             Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Field Medical Equipment (FFME)..........................             3.5
    Shelter and Tents (Command Post Large Tactical Shelter).             2.2
    Shelters and Tents (Ultra Lightweight Camouflage Net                 5.3
     System)................................................
    Individual First Aid Kit (IFAK).........................             3.5
    Infantry Combat Equipment (ICE).........................            11.7
    Portable Tent Lighting..................................             3.5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE

        Prior to 1997, the National Guard and Reserve Equipment
    Appropriation was a critical resource to ensure adequate funding for
    new equipment for the Reserve Components. The much-needed items not
    funded by the respective service budget were frequently purchased
    through this appropriation. In some cases it was used to bring unit
    equipment readiness to a needed state for mobilization.
        With the war, the Reserve and Guard are faced with mounting
    challenges on how to replace worn out equipment, equipment lost due to
    combat operations, legacy equipment that is becoming irrelevant or
    obsolete, and in general replacing that which is gone or aging through
    normal wear and tear. In the past, the use of ``cascading'' equipment
    from the Active Component to the Reserve Component has been a reliable
    source of serviceable equipment. However, with the changes in roles and
    missions that have placed a preponderance of combat support and combat
    service support in the reserve components, there has not been much left
    to cascade. Funding levels, rising costs, lack of replacement parts for
    older equipment, etc. has made it difficult for the Reserve Components
    to maintain their aging equipment, not to mention modernizing and
    recapitalizing to support a viable legacy force. The Reserve Components
    would benefit greatly from a National Military Resource Strategy that
    includes a National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation.
        To optimize the readiness of the Guard and Reserve it is also
    imperative to maintain separate Reserve funds from the Active duty.
    Recruiting and Retention
        The Reserve Officers Association would like to thank this committee
    for it support with funding recruiting and reenlistment bonuses for
    both the Active and Reserve.
                Army Reserve
        As combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan become ``stability''
    operations, it is expected that the Army Reserve and National Guard
    will make up 50 percent or more of the force. Both the Active Component
    and the Reserve Component will move to a rotational plan that will
    provide both predictability and stability for soldiers. Recruiting and
    retention bonuses are helping meet these requirements. The Army Reserve
    needs to fully fund their bonus program with $332 million and increase
    AGR recruiter positions with funding to $59.1 million.
                Navy Reserve
        In March, the Navy Reserve recruited 757 sailors, 87 percent of its
    goal. While the Navy's Reserve is downsizing to reach the new end-
    strengths set by Congress of 73,100 from 83,400. There still remains a
    need to recruit. The enlistment bonus program supports the Navy's
    emerging human capital strategy. It enables the Navy to enlist
    personnel with the right skill and education mix to meet the needs of
    the force.
                Air Force Reserve
        In a 10-year period the Air Force Reserve went from accessing
    50,507 prior service members in 1992 to 14,950 in 2005. This has meant
    increased funding of $20.4 million for recruiting of non-prior service
    personnel to meet recruitment quotas.
        It can take from 1 to 2 years before an individual can perform
    military duty somewhat independently. Each year for the past 5 years,
    AF Reserve has enhanced its advertising effort due to the need to
    compete in the demographic pool with the Active and National Guard
    recruiters. The recruiting competition will be stiffer and the
    advertising dollar will produce less results.
        ROA recommends supporting bonus incentives and reverse cost
    avoidance reduction trends that cut the reserve personnel and
    technician accounts.

                           CIOR/CIOMR FUNDING REQUEST

        The Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers (CIOR) was
    founded in 1948, and its affiliate organization, The Interallied
    Confederation of Medical Reserve Officers (CIOMR) was founded in 1947.
    The organization is a nonpolitical, independent confederation of
    national reserve associations of the signatory countries of the North
    Atlantic Treaty (NATO). Presently there are 16 member delegations
    representing over 800,000 reserve officers.
        CIOR is recognized as the representative of NATO's Reserve Forces,
    formalized in 1976. An International Staff Liaison Officer is
    designated and has, on behalf of the NATO Secretary General,
    responsibility for formal contacts between NATO and CIOR and for
    providing political advice. A Reserve Affairs Advisor has been
    appointed at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). This
    officer's principle duties include liaison with CIOR for Allied Command
    Europe (ACE).
        CIOR supports four programs to improve professional development and
    international understanding.
        Military Competition.--The CIOR Military Competition is a strenuous
    3 day contest on warfighting skills among Reserve Officers teams from
    member countries. These contests emphasize combined and joint military
    actions relevant to the multinational aspects of current and future
    Alliance operations.
        Language Academy.--The two official languages of NATO are English
    and French. As a non-government body, operating on a limited budget, it
    is not in a position to afford the expense of providing simultaneous
    translation services. The Academy offers intensive courses in English
    and French at proficiency levels 1, 2 and 3 as specified by NATO
    Military Agency for Standardization. The Language Academy affords
    national junior officer members the opportunity to become fluent in
    English as a second language.
        Partnership for Peace (PfP).--Established by CIOR Executive
    Committee in 1994 with the focus of assisting NATO PfP nations with the
    development of reserve officer and enlisted organizations according to
    democratic principles. CIOR's PfP Committee, fully supports the
    development of civil-military relationships and respect for democratic
    ideals within PfP nations. CIOR PfP Committee also assists in the
    invitation process to participating countries in the Military
    Competition.
        Young Reserve Officers Workshop.--The workshops are arranged
    annually by the NATO International Staff (IS). Selected issues are
    assigned to joint seminars through the CIOR Defense and Security Issues
    (SECDEF) Commission. Junior grade officers work in a joint seminar
    environment to analyze Reserve concerns relevant to NATO.
        Dues do not cover the workshops and individual countries help fund
    the events. The Department of the Army as Executive Agent hasn't been
    funding these programs.

                                 ROA LAW CENTER

        It was suggested that ROA could incorporate some federal military
    offices, such as recruiting offices, into the newly remodeled ROA
    Minuteman Memorial building. ROA would be willing to work with this
    committee on any suggestion.
        The Reserve Officers Association's recommendation would be to
    develop a Servicemembers Law Center, advising Active and Reserve
    servicemembers who have been subject to legal problems that occur
    during deployment.
        A legal center would help encourage new members to join the Active,
    Guard and Reserve components by providing a non-affiliation service to
    educate prior service about USERRA and Servicemember Civil Relief Act
    (SCRA) protections, and other legal issues. It would help retention as
    a member of the staff could work with Active and Reserve Component
    members to counsel those who are preparing to deploy, deployed or
    recently deployed members facing legal problems.
        The Legal Center could advise, refer by providing names of
    attorneys who work related legal issues and amicus curiae briefs,
    encourage law firms to represent service members, and educate and
    training lawyers, especially active and reserve judge advocates on
    servicemember protection cases. The center could also be a resource to
    Congress.
        ROA would set-aside office spaces. ROA's Defense Education Fund
    would hire an initial staff of one lawyer, and one administrative law
    clerk to man the Servicemembers Law Center to counsel individuals and
    their legal representatives.
        Anticipated startup cost, first year: $750,000.

                                   CONCLUSION

        DOD is in the middle of executing a war and operations in Iraq are
    directly associated with this effort. The impact of the war is
    affecting the very nature of the Guard and Reserve, not just the
    execution of roles and missions. Without adequate funding, the Guard
    and Reserve may be viewed as a source to provide fund to the Active
    Component. It makes sense to fully fund the most cost efficient
    components of the Total Force, its Reserve Components.
        At a time of war, we are expending the smallest percentage of GDP
    in history on National Defense. Funding now reflects about 3.8 percent
    of GDP. ROA has a resolution urging that defense spending should be 5
    percent to cover both the war and homeland security. While these are
    big dollars, the President and Congress must understand that this type
    of investment is what it will take to equip, train and maintain an all-
    volunteer force for adequate national security.
        The Reserve Officers Association, again, would like to thank the
    subcommittee for the opportunity to present our testimony. We are
    looking forward to working with you, and supporting your efforts in any
    way that we can.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Dr. Gene E. Feigel,
    President of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
    Welcome, doctor.
        Dr. Feigel. Thank you.

    STATEMENT OF GENE E. FEIGEL, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
                SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (ASME)
        Dr. Feigel. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Gene
    Feigel. I'm President of ASME, a 120,000 member professional
    organization focused on technical, educational, and research
    issues of importance to the engineering community.
        Engineers are a major portion of this Nation's technology
    base, a base that is essential for our defense and our economic
    vitality. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on
    the DOD's science and technology programs, the S&T programs,
    which include basic and applied research, and advanced
    technology development programs at DOD.
        I want to specifically thank this subcommittee and
    especially you, Mr. Chairman, for the past and ongoing support
    you've shown for the defense S&T programs.
        The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for defense
    S&T is $11 billion, which is $2 billion less than the fiscal
    2006 appropriated amount of $13 billion, representing a steep
    16 percent reduction.
        The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Defense
    Science Board, as well as senior Defense Department officials
    and commanders from the Air Force, Army, and Navy, have voiced
    strong support for the future allocation of at least 3 percent
    of the overall DOD budget for S&T programs. The fiscal 2007
    request if implemented would represent a significantly reduced
    investment in defense S&T.
        We strongly urge this subcommittee to consider additional
    resources to maintain at least stable funding in the S&T
    funding portion of the DOD budget. At a minimum, $13.2 billion,
    or approximately $2.1 billion above the President's request, is
    required to meet the 3 percent of total obligation authority
    guideline set in the 2001 QDR, and is also supported by many
    members of Congress.
        We also urge this subcommittee to support the university
    research initiative by restoring funds for the program to the
    fiscal 2006 level of $272 million for the forthcoming budget. A
    recent study by the National Academy of Sciences entitled,
    ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm; Energizing and Employing
    America for a Brighter Economic Future,'' evaluated the
    position of the United States in several critical measures of
    technology, education, innovation, and high-skilled workforce
    development. While the report indicated that the United States
    maintains a slight lead in research and discovery, the academy
    committee observed that it is, quotes, ``deeply concerned that
    the scientific and technological building blocks critical to
    our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other
    nations are gaining strength.''
        Proper attention should be given to the vital role that DOD
    S&T programs play in meeting this challenge. Study after study
    has linked over 50 percent of our economic growth over the past
    50 years to technological innovation. The ``Gathering Storm''
    report places special emphasis on information sciences and
    basic research conducted by the DOD, because of its large
    influence on technological innovation and workforce
    development.
        The DOD funds 40 percent of all engineering research
    performed at our universities. The technological superiority of
    our young men and women in the services and in the campaigns
    waged in Afghanistan and Iraq is a direct result of investments
    made in S&T several decades ago.
        Moreover, this research is truly dual-use. As well as
    directly being critical to national security, it is critical to
    educating new generations of scientists and engineers.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this
    very important subject.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Dr. Feigel.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Gene E. Feigel, Ph.D.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Greetings Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and Members of the
    committee. My name is Gene Feigel and I am honored to be here as the
    President of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) to
    share our perspectives on the fiscal year 2007 budget request for the
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and the Science and
    Technology (S&T) portion of the Department of Defense budget request.
        With 120,000 members, ASME is a worldwide engineering society
    focused on technical, educational and research issues. It conducts one
    of the world's largest technical publishing operations, holds
    approximately 30 technical conferences and 200 professional development
    courses each year, and sets many industry and manufacturing standards.
    This testimony represents the considered judgment of experts from
    universities, industry, and members from the engineering and scientific
    community who contribute their time and expertise to evaluate the
    budgets requests and legislative initiatives the DOD sends to Congress.
        Our testimony addresses three (3) primary funding areas: overall
    Engineering (RDT&E); Science and Technology (S&T); and the University
    Research Initiative (URI). Our testimony also outlines the consequences
    of inadequate funding for defense research. These include a degraded
    competitive position in developing advanced military technology versus
    potential peer competitors, which could harm the United States' global
    economic and military leadership.
        The fiscal year 2007 request, if implemented, would represent a
    significantly reduced investment in Defense S&T. We strongly urge this
    committee to consider additional resources to maintain stable funding
    in the S&T portion of the DOD budget. At a minimum, $13.2 billion, or
    about $2.1 billion above the President's request is required to meet
    the 3 percent of Total Obligational Authority (TOA) guideline set in
    the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review and by Congress.

                             DOD REQUEST FOR RDT&E

        The administration requested $73.156 billion for the Research,
    Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) portion of the fiscal year
    2007 DOD budget. These resources are used mostly for developing,
    demonstrating, and testing weapon systems, such as fighter aircraft,
    satellites, and warships. This amount represents growth from last
    year's appropriated amount of $71.046 billion of about 3.0 percent.
    Therefore, when adjusted for inflation, this represents a reduction of
    about 0.8 percent in real terms. Funds for Operational Test and
    Evaluation (OT&E) function remain low, where the proposed funding of
    $182 million is little more than half of the 2005 appropriated amount
    of $310 million. The OT&E organization and the testing it conducts was
    mandated by Congress, and is intended to insure that weapon systems are
    thoroughly tested so that they are effective and safe for our troops.
        While this testimony focuses on the fiscal year 2007 budget, the
    task force notes that the last multi-year spending plan from 2006, as
    provided in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), generally shows
    reduced spending in RDT&E accounts over the next 5 years, with spending
    in fiscal year 2011 being just $59.7 billion, or a 18.4 percent
    reduction from current levels. This reduced spending in R&D is
    inconsistent with the goal of developing new systems with advanced
    capabilities that support military transformation.

                     DOD REQUEST FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

        The fiscal year 2007 budget request for Defense Science and
    Technology (S&T) is $11.083 billion, which is $2.11 billion less than
    the fiscal year 2006 appropriated amount of $13.191 and represents a 16
    percent reduction. The S&T portion of overall DOD spending of $439
    billion would remain at 2.5 percent. The 2001 Quadrennial Defense
    Review (QDR), the Defense Science Board (DSB), as well as senior
    Defense Department officials and commanders from the Air Force, Army,
    and Navy have voiced strong support for the future allocation of at
    least three (3) percent for S&T programs. Clearly, this budget request
    is inadequate to meet the country's need for robust S&T funding.
        A relatively small fraction of the RDT&E budget is allocated for
    S&T programs. While the fiscal year 2007 S&T request represents only
    about 15 percent of the RDT&E total, these accounts support all of the
    new knowledge creation, invention and technology developments for the
    military. Funds for Basic Research (6.1), Applied Research (6.2), and
    Advanced Technology Development (6.3) and all categories are programmed
    for significant funding reductions.
        Basic Research (6.1) accounts would decrease from $1.47 billion to
    $1.43 billion, a 2.7 percent decline. While basic research accounts
    comprise only a small percentage over all RDT&E funds, the programs
    that these accounts support are critically important to fundamental,
    scientific advances and for maintaining a highly skilled science and
    engineering workforce.
        Basic research accounts are used mostly to support science and
    engineering research and graduate, technical education at universities
    in all 50 States. Almost all of the current high-technology weapon
    systems, from laser-guided, precision weapons, to the global
    positioning satellite (GPS) system, have their origin in fundamental
    discoveries generated in these basic research programs. Proper
    investments in basic research are needed now, so that the fundamental
    scientific results will be available to create innovative solutions for
    future defense challenges. In addition, many of the technical leaders
    in corporations and government laboratories that are developing current
    weapon systems, such as the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter, were
    educated under basic research programs funded by DOD. Failure to invest
    sufficient resources in basic, defense-oriented research will reduce
    innovation and weaken the future scientific and engineering workforce.
    The Task Force recommends that Basic Research (6.1) be funded at a
    minimum level of $1.7 billion.
        Applied Research (6.2) would be reduced from $5.17 billion to $4.48
    billion, a 13 percent reduction. The programs supported by these
    accounts apply basic scientific knowledge, often phenomena discovered
    under the basic research programs, to important defense needs. Applied
    research programs may involve laboratory proof-of-concept and are
    generally conducted at universities, government laboratories, or by
    small businesses. Many of the successful demonstrations led to the
    creation of small companies, like the Small Business Innovative
    Research (SBIR) programs. Some devices created in these defense
    technology programs have dual use, such as GPS, and the commercial
    market far exceeds the defense market. However, without initial support
    by Defense Applied Research funds, many of these companies would not
    exist. Failure to properly invest in applied research would prevent
    stifle a key source of technological development and stunt the creation
    and growth of small entrepreneurial companies.
        The largest reduction would occur in Advanced Technology
    Development (6.3), which would experience a 21.5 percent decline, from
    $6.603 billion to $5.183 billion. These resources support programs that
    ready technology to be transitioned into weapon systems. Without the
    real system level demonstrations funded by these accounts, companies
    are reluctant to incorporate new technologies into weapon systems
    programs.
        The individual service's S&T accounts reflect the general trend of
    large reductions described above. However the largest reductions are in
    the Army's accounts, where Basic Research would be cut by 16.2 percent,
    Applied Research by 45.2 percent, and Advanced Technology Development
    by 48.0 percent. The only major S&T components with increases are
    ``Defense-Wide'' Basic Research (6.1) and Applied Research (6.2) where
    9.1 percent and 6.5 percent increases are proposed respectively. We
    strongly support these increases, especially the 10.6 percent boost in
    the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) to $3.3 billion.

            DOD REQUEST FOR THE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVE (URI)

        The University Research Initiative (URI) supports graduate
    education in Mathematics, Science, and Engineering and would see a $23
    million decrease from $272 million to $249 million in fiscal year 2007
    next year, a 3.2 percent reduction. Sufficient funding for the URI is
    critical to educating the next generation of engineers and scientist
    for the defense industry. Since the URI programs were devolved, the
    services have not given a high priority to these programs. A lag in
    program funds will have a serious long-term negative consequence on our
    ability to develop a highly skilled scientific and engineering
    workforce to build weapons systems for years to come. While DOD has
    enormous current commitments, these pressing needs should not be
    allowed to squeeze out the small but very important investments
    required to create the next generation of highly skilled technical
    workers for the American defense industry. This would be shortsighted.

           REDUCED S&T FUNDING THREATENS AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY

        Since World War II the United States has led the world in science,
    innovation, and defense technology. However, this lead is quickly
    eroding and within the next few years may be substantially reduced or
    may completely evaporate in some areas. A recent study performed by the
    National Academy of Sciences, entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering
    Storm: Energy and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,''
    evaluated the position of the United States in several critical
    measures of technology, education, innovation, and high skilled
    workforce development. While the report indicated that the U.S.
    maintains a slight lead in research and discovery, the committee states
    that it is ``deeply concerned that the scientific and technological
    building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a
    time when many other nations are gaining strength.'' Proper attention
    should be given to the vital role that DOD S&T programs play in meeting
    this challenge.
        S&T have played a historic role in creating an innovative economy
    and a highly skilled workforce. Study after study has linked over 50
    percent of our economic growth over the past 50 years to technological
    innovation. The ``Gathering Storm'' report places a ``special emphasis
    on information sciences and basic research'' conducted by the DOD
    because of large influence on technological innovation and workforce
    development. The DOD, for example, funds 40 percent of all engineering
    research performed at our universities. U.S. economic leadership
    depends on the S&T programs that support the Nation's defense base,
    promote technological superiority in weapons systems, and educate new
    generations of sciences and engineers.
        Prudent investments also directly affect U.S. national security.
    There is a general belief among defense strategist that the United
    States must have the industrial base to develop and produce the
    military systems required for national defense. Many Members of
    Congress also hold this view. A number of disconcerting trends, such as
    outsourcing of engineering activities and low participation of U.S.
    students in science and engineering, threaten to create a critical
    shortage of the native, skilled, scientific and engineering work force
    is required. Programs that boost the available number of highly
    educated workers who reside in the United States are important to stem
    our growing reliance on foreign nations, including potentially hostile
    ones, to fill the ranks of our defense industries and to ensure that we
    continue to produce the innovative, effective defense systems of the
    future.

                                RECOMMENDATIONS

        In conclusion, we thank the subcommittee for its ongoing support of
    Defense S&T. This committee appreciates the difficult choices that
    Congress must make in this tight budgetary environment. We believe,
    however, that there are critical shortages in the DOD S&T areas,
    particularly in those that support in basic research and technical
    education that are critical to U.S. military and economic leadership.
        The Task Force recommends the following:
      --We urge this subcommittee to support an appropriation of $13.2
            billion for S&T programs, which is 3 percent of the overall
            fiscal year 2007 DOD budget. This request is consistent with
            recommendations contained in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense
            Review and made by the Defense Science Board (DSB), as well as
            senior Defense Department officials and commanders from the Air
            Force, Army, and Navy, who have voiced support for the future
            allocation of 3 percent as a worthy benchmark for science and
            technology programs.
      --We also recommend that the subcommittee support the University
            Research Initiative by restoring funds for the program to the
            fiscal year 2006 level of $272 million to the URI program for
            fiscal year 2007. A strong investment in advanced technical
            education will allow the Nation's armed services to draw from a
            large pool of highly-skilled, native-born workers for its
            science and engineering endeavors.
        ASME International is a non-profit technical and educational
    organization with 125,000 members worldwide. The Society's members work
    in all sectors of the economy, including industry, academic, and
    government. This statement represents the views of the ASME Department
    of Defense Task Force of ASME's Technical Communities and is not
    necessarily a position of ASME as a whole.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Command Chief Master
    Sergeant Mark H. Olanoff, United States Air Force, retired,
    representing the Armed Forces Top Enlisted Association.

    STATEMENT OF COMMAND CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT MARK H.
                OLANOFF, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (RETIRED),
                ON BEHALF OF THE ARMED FORCES TOP ENLISTED
                ASSOCIATION
        Sergeant Olanoff. Good morning, Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. Good morning, sir.
        Sergeant Olanoff. It is nice to see you again. Thank you
    for everything that you've done for us in the past. And we know
    sometimes that we are preaching to the choir to you and Senator
    Stevens, because you've both done so much for us. I know time
    is short. There were comments earlier about the issues that we
    have to deal with--with the authorization committee, and we
    realize that, and you know that we brought up the issues here
    to you about the survivor benefits and the increases in
    retirement pay, the TRICARE problems, and those things.
        But there is one thing from a standpoint of appropriations
    that I think that is interesting. I've put it in my full
    statement, but I want to read you a portion of what the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) said about ways to
    increase collections for health care for DOD, which is very
    similar to what the Department of Veterans Affairs can do. GAO
    says that: ``DOD's failure to effectively bill and collect from
    third-party insurers in effect reduces the amount third-party
    private sector insurance companies must pay out in benefits and
    unnecessarily add to DOD's increasing health care budget
    financed by taxpayers. While DOD has limited control over the
    burgeoning cost of providing health care benefits to DOD
    retirees and their dependents, and active duty dependents, DOD
    has an opportunity to offset the impact of its rising health
    care costs by collecting amounts due from its third-party
    collection program.''
        Now you know, Senator, that the Defense Department has
    proposed that military retirees pay more, and both the House
    and the Senate have rejected that. However, they haven't put
    the funding back into place, and it is about $735 million that
    needs to be funded.
        But overall, there is an imbalance between the
    discretionary funding and the mandatory funding; the
    operational cost and the personnel cost. And many of us have
    come before you over the years here, many of the associations,
    to bring this up. And we realize that although the
    authorization committees have to do things, we bring these
    things to your attention because many of us get to come here,
    and unfortunately the Armed Services Committee hearings are
    very limited. So we ask you to fully fund health care, and to
    look at all these other programs that we talk about in our
    statements, although we realize that the authorization
    committees have to do some things.
        The last issue I want to talk about is the Reserve
    component. You just heard a little bit of testimony about that.
    In the President's budget, he has asked to cut the Reserve
    components by 22,800 people, specifically the Army National
    Guard by 17,100. And as someone who's very familiar with the
    Guard and Reserve, I find it very unbelievable that the
    Secretary of Defense and others come before these committees
    and ask you, and explain to you that the Guard and Reserve need
    to do more, but now we want to propose cuts in their manning.
    It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
        And as you know, the National Guard is going to be
    supporting a mission to go to the border. And although the
    Secretary of Defense testified to you last week and said that
    most of that is going to be done through annual training tours,
    that can only be sustained for a very limited period of time.
        So I realize time is short, and I have provided detailed
    explanation in my written statement, and hopefully the
    subcommittee will do what they can this year to support the
    programs. Thank you, Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. I can assure you that we will study your
    proposal very carefully, because we are concerned about the
    cutback.
        Sergeant Olanoff. Thank you, Senator Inouye.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Mark H. Olanoff

                                 AFTEA MISSION

        The AFTEA mission is to advocate a strong national defense that
    will protect the security of the United States. We support a defense
    budget that will provide modern and sufficient equipment so that our
    military personnel can safely and effectively accomplish their mission.
        We seek to educate the public and Members of Congress about the
    uniformed services and their most important asset, its people.
        We promote improved quality-of-life and economic fairness that will
    support the well-being of the men and women of America's Uniformed
    Services and their families. We give voice to members' concerns about
    military pay, health care, pension and disability, survivor benefits,
    education, housing, child care, and other quality-of-life programs.
        The Armed Forces Top Enlisted Association is a non-profit 501C(19)
    veteran's organization, representing the professional and personal
    interests of Active Duty and retired men and women of America's
    Uniformed Services, National Guard and Reserve. Members in AFTEA are
    Sergeant Majors, Master Chief Petty Officers, Master Gunnery Sergeants,
    and Chief Master Sergeants from all branches of the Uniformed Services:
    Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corp, and Coast Guard. We are unique in
    that each member must have either retired as or currently hold the
    grade of E-9.
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the subcommittee: On
    behalf of our National President, Command Sergeant Major Albert G.
    Ybanez, USA (Ret), we are grateful to the subcommittee for this
    opportunity to express our views concerning the fiscal year 2007
    Department of Defense budget as it relates to issues affecting the
    uniformed service community.

               IMBALANCE BETWEEN OPERATIONAL AND PERSONNEL COSTS

        Our National President recently said: ``Faced with a budget that
    forced choices between costly weapons systems, first envisioned for war
    against the Soviets, and ground troops to fight wars like those in
    Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon went for hardware. The 2007 budget
    gives hardware higher priority than men and women in uniform.''
        This budget proposes sharp increases in health care costs
    (enrollment fees, co-payments and deductibles) for the men and women of
    the armed services who served a career for their Nation, and are not
    yet eligible for TRICARE for Life (TFL). Further, this budget proposes
    increases in health care costs for those currently serving in reserve
    components. With the Nation at war, this is not the time to increase
    fees and co-payments for those who are currently serving and those who
    have served.
        Over the past years, Congress has significantly improved pay for
    the men and women serving on Active Duty and in the Reserve Components.
    Also, Congress has improved benefits for those who have served,
    including significant progress in receipt of retired pay for those with
    service-connected disabilities, full commissary benefits for grey-area
    reserve retirees, and increased survivor benefits for widows and
    widowers of military retirees.
        Yet, senior Defense Department officials have publicly stated in
    numerous newspaper ``op-eds'' and in testimony before committees of the
    Congress that these increased benefits are a ``drain on the defense
    budget.''
        Pentagon officials told the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on
    Personnel that ``. . . a rich benefits package, coupled with expanded
    retiree coverage, has thrust the Pentagon into the same financial
    predicament that is threatening the profitability of such major
    companies as General Motors Corp.'' Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr.,
    Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, told the
    subcommittee ``. . . the facts show that our expansion of health
    benefits, such as those for our senior retirees, underlies the growth,
    and that growth could put today's operations and sustainability at
    risk.'' He went on to say ``. . . caring for military retirees is the
    principle underlying factor of the rising costs.''
        DOD has also convinced the Joint Chiefs of Staff to endorse these
    fee increases, saying the budget savings are needed to help fund
    weapons and other needs. Only a few years ago, then chairman of the
    Joint Chiefs General Shelton told the Congress that the Nation had a
    moral obligation to those who served their Nation and are now retired.
        So if the budget savings from these sharply higher costs to the men
    and women who served our Nation are needed to help fund weapons and
    other needs, let's take a look at DOD's track record of defense
    acquisitions according to the Government Accountability office (GAO).
        According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), GAO-06-
    391, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Major Weapon
    Programs, dated March 31, 2006, ``In the last 5 years, the Department
    of Defense has doubled its planned investments in new weapon systems
    from about $700 billion in 2001 to nearly $1.4 trillion in 2006''.
    Further, GAO states ``GAO's reviews over the past 30 years have found
    consistent problems with weapon acquisitions such as cost increases,
    schedule delays and performance shortfalls''. GAO also states ``DOD
    often exceeds development cost estimates by approximately 30 to 40
    percent and experiences cuts in planned quantities, missed deadlines,
    and performance shortfalls. Such difficulties, absent definitive and
    effective reform outcomes, are likely to cause great turmoil in a
    budget environment in which there are growing fiscal imbalances as well
    as increasing conflict over increasingly limited resources''.
        On April 14, 2006 the GAO reported again, GAO-06-368, Defense
    Acquisitions: Major Weapon Systems Continue to Experience Cost and
    Schedule Problems under DOD's Revised Policy. GAO states ``The
    Department of Defense (DOD) is planning to invest $1.3 trillion between
    2005 and 2009 in researching, developing, and procuring major weapon
    systems. How DOD manages this investment has been a matter of
    congressional concern for years. Numerous programs have been marked by
    cost overruns, schedule delays, and reduced performance. Over the past
    3 decades, DOD's acquisition environment has undergone many changes
    aimed at curbing cost, schedule, and other problems. In order to
    determine if the policy DOD put in place is achieving its intended
    goals, we assessed the outcomes of major weapons development programs
    initiated under the revised policy. Additionally, we assessed whether
    the policy's knowledge-based, evolutionary principles are being
    effectively implemented, and whether effective controls and specific
    criteria are in place and being used to make sound investment
    decisions. Changes made in DOD's acquisition policy over the past 5
    years have not eliminated cost and schedule problems for major weapons
    development programs. Of the 23 major programs we assessed, 10 are
    already expecting development cost overruns greater than 30 percent or
    have delayed the delivery of initial operational capability to the
    warfighter by at least 1 year. The overall impact of these costly
    conditions is a reduction in the value of DOD's defense dollars and a
    lower return on investment. Poor execution of the revised acquisition
    policy is a major cause of DOD's continued problems. DOD frequently
    bypasses key steps of the knowledge-based process outlined in the
    policy, falls short of attaining key knowledge, and continues to pursue
    revolutionary--rather than evolutionary or incremental--advances in
    capability. Nearly 80 percent of the programs GAO reviewed did not
    fully follow the knowledge-based process to develop a sound business
    case before committing to system development. Most of the programs we
    reviewed started system development with immature technologies, and
    half of the programs that have held design reviews did so before
    achieving a high level of design maturity. These practices increase the
    likelihood that problems will be discovered late in development when
    they are more costly to address. Furthermore, DOD's continued pursuit
    of revolutionary leaps in capability also runs counter to the policy's
    guidance. DOD has not closed all of the gaps in the policy that GAO
    identified nearly 3 years ago, particularly with regard to adding
    controls and criteria. Effective controls require decision makers to
    measure progress against specific criteria and ensure that managers
    capture key knowledge before moving to the next acquisition phase.
    However, DOD's policy continues to allow managers to approach major
    investment decisions with many unknowns. Without effective controls
    that require program officials to satisfy specific criteria, it is
    difficult to hold decision makers or program managers accountable to
    cost and schedule targets. In this environment, decision-making
    transparency is crucial, but DOD is lacking in this area as well.
        It appears to us that the country (and the tax payers) would be
    best served by the Defense Department ``cleaning up'' its acquisition
    policies and practices, and stop trying to balance their budget on the
    backs of the uniformed services men and women who serve and have
    served. A record budget that focuses more on modernization than people
    programs is forgetting that it is people who make the military run.
        AFTEA was unable to find any GAO reports about planned investments
    in ``people programs''.
        AFTEA recommends an oversight hearing to include a complete review
    of the issues of entitlement and discretionary spending for the
    Department of Defense.

                                DOD HEALTH CARE

        Over the past few years, Congress has recognized the contributions
    of the men and women in the armed services who served a career for
    their Nation, and then retired. One important recognition is now
    referred to as TRICARE for Life (TFL).
        Now, the administration has proposed sharp increases in enrollment
    fees, co-payments and deductibles for those who have retired and are
    not yet eligible for TFL, specifically those under the age of 65. We
    view the Defense Department's proposal as a ``roll-back'' in the health
    care benefit that career military men and women earned.
        A great deal of the Pentagon's concern over rising health care
    costs involves the nearly $9 billion annual deposit to the Medicare-
    Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund that the administration wrongly
    counts against the defense budget.
        Two years ago, when Defense leaders said the administration was
    making them take this deposit ``out of hide'' at the expense of other
    Defense programs, the Armed Services Committees acted to change the law
    to shift that deposit from the Defense budget to the U.S. Treasury
    budget. The clear intent was that TFL expenses were not to come at the
    expense of other readiness needs. Congress passed that provision as
    part of the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 108-
    375). Section 725 provided revised funding methodology for military
    retiree health care benefits. Section 1116 of title 10, United States
    Code was amended. Section 1116(a) states: ``At the beginning of each
    fiscal year after September 30, 2005, the Secretary of Treasury shall
    promptly pay into the Fund from the General Treasury''. Subsections (1)
    and (2) provide for how the amount is determined. This section deals
    with the accrual amount for military retiree health care for those
    using TRICARE for Life.
        But the Office of Management and Budget has since worked against
    the clear letter of the law and has continued to charge the deposit
    against the defense budget. That's why the administration has wrongly
    forced the Joint Chiefs of Staff to choose between retiree health
    funding and weapons programs.
        The fiscal year 2007 NDAA that was marked-up by the House Armed
    Services Committee includes a provision (section 589) to correct this
    error. Section 589(b) states ``No funds authorized or appropriated to
    the Department of Defense may be used to fund, or otherwise provide
    for, the payments required by this section''.
        The President's budget request for the Office of Personnel
    Management (OPM) for fiscal year 2007 includes funding for the
    government's share of the cost of health insurance for annuitants,
    which includes retirees (Title 5, USC 8901, subsection 3A). This
    section also covers Members of Congress and the President. The funding
    requested for fiscal year 2007 is $8.78 billion.
        AFTEA urges the subcommittee to:
      --Fully fund DOD's health care account.
      --Appropriate the costs for military health care similar to federal
            civilians and retirees enrolled in the Federal Employee Health
            Benefits Plan (FEHBP). Provide the accrual funding for TRICARE
            For Life and the deposit to the Medicare-Eligible Retiree
            Health Care Fund by the Treasury, and not the Department of
            Defense.
      --Direct report language that specifically prohibits the Department
            of Defense from raising any TRICARE co-payments or enrollment
            fees to include TRICARE Prime, TRICARE Extra, TRICARE Standard,
            TRICARE for Life, TRICARE Reserve Select, TRICARE Dental and
            TRICARE Prescriptions in fiscal year 2007.
        On February 20, 2004, the General Accounting Office (now Government
    Accountability Office), sent a report to the House Subcommittee on
    National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations,
    Subject: Military Treatment Facilities: Improvements Needed to Increase
    DOD Third-Party Collections. On page 2 under ``Results in Brief'', GAO
    stated ``Based on our previous audit work and our analysis or reports
    issued by military service auditors, conservatively, tens of millions
    of dollars are not being collected each year because key information
    required to effectively bill and collect from third-party insurers is
    often not properly collected, recorded, or used by MTFs. DOD's failure
    to effectively bill and collect from third-party insurers, in effect,
    reduces the amount third-party private sector insurance companies must
    pay out in benefits and unnecessarily adds to DOD's increasing health
    care budget--financed by taxpayers. While DOD has limited control over
    the burgeoning cost of providing health care benefits to DOD retirees
    and their dependents and active duty dependents, DOD has an opportunity
    to offset the impact of its rising health care costs by collecting
    amounts due from its Third Party Collection Program.''
        AFTEA urges the subcommittee to:
      --Direct DOD to improve its collection of third-party insurance as
            recommended by the GAO.
      --Support the House Armed Services Committee version of the fiscal
            year 2007 NDAA that directs a complete study of DOD's
            Healthcare system.

                                   CONCLUSION

        AFTEA is very concerned about the imbalance between ``operational''
    and ``personnel'' costs. We are also concerned that DOD has proposed
    shifting greater health care costs to beneficiaries to help fund
    weapons and other hardware needs.
        Defense Department officials would have the public believe that the
    growth in personnel costs, particularly for health care and retiree and
    survivor entitlements, is impacting on the military funding needed to
    carry out the Nation's wartime mission. They have complained about the
    cost of TRICARE for Life, concurrent receipt, SBP, and argued that
    these and other recent improvements in military and retirement benefits
    are unwarranted and will somehow bankrupt the defense budget.
        We believe that argument by the DOD to be false. Instead of
    balancing the budget on the backs of the men and women who serve and
    have served, our leaders should be honestly considering the requisite
    level of defense funding during this time of war. They must realize
    that defending the Nation costs money and the cost goes up with demand
    during wartime.
        This is a Nation of enormous wealth and it has not been the
    American tradition since the Civil War to spend, in support of war,
    with the intensity of war itself. Health care and other personnel costs
    are an ongoing cost of war. The administration and Congress need to
    adequately fund the war in all its dimensions, and mobilize and unit
    the country for the effort, and share in the sacrifice. However we
    fight the war, and whatever combination of military and nonmilitary
    means we use to win it, the war effort depends on the ability of the
    country to muster the needed resources and political will to pay for
    it.
        AFTEA is very grateful for this opportunity to testify before the
    Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and would like to thank Chairman
    Stevens and ranking member Inouye for their military service and many
    years of support to the defense of our country.
        We look forward to supporting a fiscal year 2007 Defense
    Appropriations bill that will not increase DOD's bottom line with ill-
    timed increases for those beneficiaries who have made a significant
    contribution to our Nation.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Colonel Steven
    Strobridge, United States Air Force, retired, co-chairman of
    the Military Coalition. Colonel, welcome, sir.

    STATEMENT OF COLONEL STEVEN P. STROBRIDGE, UNITED
                STATES AIR FORCE (RETIRED), DIRECTOR,
                GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, THE MILITARY
                COALITION
        Colonel Strobridge. Thank you very much, Senator Inouye,
    for the opportunity to be here today.
        The Military Coalition is concerned, like the previous
    witnesses have stated, that the defense budget is being
    squeezed significantly on a variety of fronts. We are
    particularly troubled that this is happening even as our
    military members and their families, who comprise less than 1
    percent of Americans, are being asked to bear virtually 100
    percent of the national burden of sacrifice in the global war
    on terror. Our forces are undermanned for the mission they are
    being asked to bear. We are having difficulty recruiting new
    servicemembers, and increasing numbers of today's forces are
    wondering whether the rewards inherent in a military career are
    worth the sacrifices.
        These concerns are being compounded as some in government
    now seek to carve funds from programs that are essential to
    sustain our troops and families through their extended trials.
    Our fervent hope is that the subcommittee will not allow that
    to happen.
        We urge full funding for the troop levels recommended
    earlier this month by the Armed Services Committee, an increase
    of 30,000 for the Army, 1,000 for the Marine Corps, and 17,000
    for the Army National Guard. These are all above the amounts
    requested in the President's budget, and additional funding is
    essential to ensure that the Pentagon is not forced to absorb
    these added costs in an already constrained budget.
        Ensuring full funding of the defense health program is
    another top priority. Both the House and the Senate Armed
    Services Committees have already categorically rejected
    Pentagon plans to double or triple military retiree health
    fees. The problem is that the President's budget already
    reduced the defense health program by $735 million in the
    expectation that these fees would dramatically reduce demand.
    And that is just not going to happen, and the $735 million
    needs to be restored, or military medicine is going to run out
    of money next summer.
        The House Appropriations Committee did not restore the
    necessary funding, saying it would wait to see what the
    authorizers would do. That has now been decided. They are not
    going to allow the fees. So it falls on this subcommittee to
    protect the integrity of the defense health program, and
    hopefully restore that vital $735 million.
        The coalition also asks the subcommittee to fund the full
    military pay raise proposed by the Armed Services Committee,
    including the additional targeted raises proposed for warrant
    officers and certain enlisted members. Family support funding
    is another vital area of interest. Military members will endure
    a lot in serving their country. Retention is a family issue.
    And military families are under a great deal of stress.
    Programs for Guard and Reserve families, most of whom do not
    live near military installations, are a continuing special
    priority.
        As base realignment and closure (BRAC) and global re-basing
    begins, we will be relocating large numbers of families between
    installations. Funding simply has to be provided to ensure that
    support facilities at closing bases continue until the families
    are gone, and we must fund housing, schools, health care
    networks, and child care needs, among other things, so those
    facilities are fully ready at gaining installation before the
    incoming thousands of families arrive.
        Finally, we've just seen reports that at least some
    services are dramatically curtailing funding for some on-base
    facilities, such as libraries, swimming pools, gymnasiums, and
    other base support facilities, in order to make up for
    operations and equipment shortfalls. We hope you will provide
    the operation and maintenance (O&M) funding as needed, and
    check into that so that these services do not have to further
    compound the already inordinate sacrifices the families are
    observing through these kinds of penny-wise and pound-foolish
    tradeoffs.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, for this
    opportunity to provide the coalition's inputs.
        Senator Stevens [presiding]. Thank you for your testimony.
    Senator, do you have any questions?
        [No response.]
        Senator Stevens. No. We appreciate, and we share your
    feelings.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Steven P. Strobridge

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the committee. On behalf
    of The Military Coalition, a consortium of nationally prominent
    uniformed services and veterans' organizations, we are grateful to the
    committee for this opportunity to express our views concerning issues
    affecting the uniformed services community. This testimony provides the
    collective views of the following military and veterans' organizations,
    which represent approximately 5.5 million current and former members of
    the seven uniformed services, plus their families and survivors.
      --Air Force Association
      --Air Force Sergeants Association
      --Air Force Women Officers Associated
      --American Logistics Association
      --AMVETS (American Veterans)
      --Army Aviation Association of America
      --Association of Military Surgeons of the United States
      --Association of the United States Army
      --Chief Warrant Officer and Warrant Officer Association, U.S. Coast
            Guard
      --Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health
            Service, Inc.
      --Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States
      --Fleet Reserve Association
      --Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
      --Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America
      --Marine Corps League
      --Marine Corps Reserve Association
      --Military Chaplains Association of the United States of America
      --Military Officers Association of America
      --Military Order of the Purple Heart
      --National Association for Uniformed Services
      --National Guard Association of the United States
      --National Military Family Association
      --National Order of Battlefield Commissions
      --Naval Enlisted Reserve Association
      --Naval Reserve Association
      --Non Commissioned Officers Association
      --Reserve Enlisted Association
      --Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces
      --The Retired Enlisted Association
      --United Armed Forces Association
      --United States Army Warrant Officers Association
      --United States Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association
      --Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
      --Veterans' Widows International Network
        The Military Coalition, Inc., does not receive any grants or
    contracts from the Federal Government.
        Mr. Chairman, The Military Coalition (TMC) thanks you and the
    entire subcommittee for your continued, unwavering support of our
    active duty, Guard, Reserve, retired members, and veterans of the
    uniformed services, to include their families and survivors.
        In testimony today, The Military Coalition offers its collective
    recommendations on what needs to be done to address these important
    issues and sustain long-term personnel readiness.

                                  HEALTH CARE

        Full Funding for the Defense Health Program.--The Defense
    Department, Congress and The Military Coalition all have reason to be
    concerned about the rising cost of military health care. But it is
    important to recognize that the bulk of the problem is a national one,
    not a military-specific one. It's also important, in these times of
    focus on deficits, to keep in perspective the government's unique
    responsibility as the recruiter, retainer, employer, and custodian of a
    career military force that serves multiple decades under
    extraordinarily arduous conditions to protect and preserve our national
    welfare.
        In this regard, the government's responsibility and obligations to
    its servicemembers go well beyond those of corporate employers. The
    Constitution itself puts the responsibility on the government to
    provide for the common defense, and on Congress to raise and maintain
    military forces. No corporate employer shares any such awesome
    responsibility and obligation, and there is no other employee
    population upon whom the entire Nation depends for its very freedom.
        Congress has pursued its responsibilities with vigor on behalf of
    those who are sacrificing, have sacrificed, and will continue to
    sacrifice so much for the rest of America. Continuing those vigorous
    efforts will be essential in addressing the budget challenges of the
    years ahead.
        The Military Coalition urges the subcommittee to ensure continued
    full funding for Defense Health Program needs.
        Protecting Beneficiaries Against Cost-Shifting.--The administration
    is proposing a significant increase in fees paid by retired uniformed
    services beneficiaries under age 65, including doubling or tripling
    enrollment fees for TRICARE Prime and tripling or quadrupling fees for
    TRICARE Standard. In addition, the President's budget recommends a 67-
    percent increase in retail pharmacy fees for all Active Duty, Guard,
    Reserve, retired, and survivor beneficiaries.
        Eroding benefits for career service can only undermine long-term
    retention/readiness. Today's troops are very conscious of Congress'
    actions toward those who preceded them in service. One reason Congress
    enacted TRICARE For Life is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff at that time
    said that inadequate retiree health care was affecting attitudes among
    active duty troops.
        Reducing military retirement benefits would be penny-wise and
    pound-foolish when recruiting is already a problem and an overstressed
    force is at increasing retention risk.
        The Coalition believes strongly that these proposed increases are
    disproportional, inequitable, inappropriate, and unwise.
        The Coalition recommends against implementing any increases in
    health fees for uniformed services beneficiaries this year. The
    Coalition believes strongly that America can afford to and must pay for
    both weapons and military health care.
        Unrealistic Budget Assumptions Will Leave TRICARE Underfunded.--The
    DOD budget proposal assumes the proposed fee increases and co-payment
    changes will save money by shifting 14 percent of pharmacy users away
    from retail outlets and causing hundreds of thousands of current
    beneficiaries to exit TRICARE by 2011. Thus, DOD has reduced the amount
    budgeted for health care on the assumption that it will be treating
    fewer beneficiaries.
        Many Defense and Service analysts believe it is unrealistic to
    assume that this number of beneficiaries will leave TRICARE if such
    fees are introduced, largely because switching to civilian coverage
    usually would entail even larger fees for beneficiaries.
        Because the assumed level of beneficiary flight is extremely
    unlikely to occur, the Department almost certainly will experience a
    substantial budget shortfall before the end of the year. This would
    then require supplemental funding, further benefit cutbacks, and even
    greater efforts to shift more costs to beneficiaries in future years.
        Thus, the most likely result of this misguided cost-shifting
    proposal would be to disproportionately penalize retirees, undermine
    military health benefits, and further threaten future retention and
    readiness.
        Alternative Options to Make TRICARE More Cost-Efficient.--The
    Coalition believes strongly that the Defense Department has not
    sufficiently investigated other options to make TRICARE more cost-
    efficient without shifting costs to beneficiaries. The Coalition has
    offered a long list of alternative cost-saving options, including:
      --Eliminating DOD-unique administrative requirements that drive
            higher overhead fees.
      --Changing the law to limit incentives private firms can offer
            employees to shift to TRICARE, or require such matching
            payments to TRICARE.
      --Improving education on the advantages of using the mail-order
            pharmacy.
      --Centralizing the military treatment facility pharmacy budget/
            funding process, with emphasis on accountability.
        Pharmacy Copayment Changes.--The Coalition is concerned that, 5
    years after pharmacy copayment levels were established, the Department
    is proposing a 67-percent increase in retail copayments. The rationale
    for the proposed increase is the rapid growth in retail pharmacy use
    since enactment of TRICARE For Life.
        The Coalition believes strongly that uniformed services
    beneficiaries deserve more stability in their benefit levels, and that
    DOD has not performed due diligence in exploring other ways to reduce
    pharmacy costs without shifting such increased expense burdens to
    beneficiaries. Thus far, the Department has refused to negotiate with
    drug companies for discounts in the retail arena. Not enough has been
    done to educate beneficiaries and providers on the advantages of the
    mail-order program. The Department has failed to centralize purchasing
    and filling of prescriptions for high-cost drugs, as the Air Force has
    done successfully.
        The Department has ignored what the Coalition believes would create
    the most powerful incentive for beneficiaries to shift from the more
    costly retail program to the mail order program--eliminating mail-order
    copays. The average drug purchased in the mail-order system saves the
    government $58 to $157 relative to providing the drug through the
    retail system. If all mail-order copayments would be eliminated, the
    savings would still be at least $50 per prescription. Elimination of
    mail-order copays would save the government $20 million for each 1
    percent of prescriptions that migrate from the retail to the mail-order
    pharmacy system.
        The Coalition recommends eliminating beneficiary copayments in the
    mail-order pharmacy system for generic and brand name medications to
    incentivize use of this lowest-cost venue and generate substantial cost
    savings.

                              ACTIVE FORCE ISSUES

        The Coalition appreciates the subcommittee's many actions to help
    relieve the stress of repeated deployments--end strength increases,
    bonus improvements, family separation, and danger area pay increases,
    and more.
        From the servicemembers' standpoint, the increased personnel tempo
    necessary to meet continued and sustained training and operational
    requirements has meant having to work progressively longer and harder
    every year. They are enduring longer duty days; increased family
    separations; cutbacks in installation services; less opportunity to use
    education benefits; and significant out-of-pocket expenses with each
    permanent change of station move.
        Intensified and sustained operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are
    being met by servicemembers' patriotic dedication, but retention must
    be an increasing concern as 1 percent of Americans continue to bear
    virtually 100 percent of the burden of national sacrifice in the global
    war on terrorism. Service leaders may tout seemingly high retention
    figures, but the Coalition cannot reconcile this with the ever-
    increasing stresses on military families.
        Military families have continued to demonstrate their exceptional
    support of servicemembers' long, recurring deployments; yet, many
    servicemembers and their families debate among themselves whether the
    rewards of a service career are sufficient to offset the attendant
    demands and sacrifices inherent in uniformed service. Unless they see
    some prospect of near-term respite, many of our excellent soldiers,
    sailors, airmen and marines will opt for civilian career choices, not
    because they don't love what they do, but because their families just
    can no longer take the stress. High retention simply cannot continue to
    co-exist with such levels of high operations tempo and family
    separations, despite the reluctance of some to see anything but rosy
    scenarios.
        The Coalition views with alarm the Defense Department's
    determination to sacrifice troop levels to pay for weapons systems,
    with seemingly little regard for the impact these decisions will have
    on servicemembers and their future retention. The finest weapon systems
    in the world will be of little use if the services don't have enough
    high quality, well-trained people to operate, maintain and support
    them.
        The Coalition believes the ``weapons or people'' debate is a
    patently false one--akin to forcing a choice between one's left and
    right arms.
        Pay Raises.--Since 1999, when the cumulative gap between military
    and private sector pay raises reached 13.5 percent--resulting in
    predictable readiness crises--this subcommittee has provided funding
    for increased military raises--reducing the pay gap to 4.5 percent in
    2006.
        The subcommittee also has supported previous Department of Defense
    plans to fix problems within the basic pay table by authorizing special
    ``targeted'' adjustments for specific grade and longevity combinations
    in order to align career servicemembers' pay with private sector
    earnings of civilians with similar education and experience.
        The Coalition believes it is essential to continue that progress as
    the global war on terror enters its sixth year.
        The Military Coalition strongly recommends providing military pay
    raises that exceed the Employment Cost Index until such time as full
    military pay comparability has been restored. The Coalition further
    recommends targeted increases for selected non-commissioned officers/
    petty officers and warrant officers as needed to attain the 70th-
    percentile comparability standard.
        Maintain Well-funded Family Readiness, Support Structure, and
    Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Programs.--Today, two-thirds of
    active duty families and virtually all Guard and Reserve families live
    off military installations, and more than one-half of these
    servicemembers are married. A fully funded family readiness program to
    include financial education and benefit information has never been a
    more crucial component to the military mission and overall readiness
    than it is today, especially when military families are coping with the
    increased deployments and separation.
        More needs to be done to ``connect'' servicemembers and their
    families with important resources. Military One Source has provided a
    great start to improve family readiness; however, a more aggressive
    outreach effort is needed to educate servicemembers and their families
    on the benefits and programs to which they are entitled. These outreach
    efforts need to address the unique needs of National Guard and Reserve
    families to include transitioning to and from active duty status.
    Traditional delivery systems of ``build it and they will come'' no
    longer serve the transforming military community of today that is
    increasingly non-installation based. More robust outreach delivery
    systems and programs are called for that can be accessed anywhere and
    anytime.
        Because of multiple DOD modernization efforts (global rebasing,
    Army modularity, and BRAC initiatives) that are occurring
    simultaneously, TMC is concerned about the synchronization, pace of
    planning, implementation timetables, timing of budgets and resource
    allocations, and the evaluation of the rebasing and BRAC plans. TMC
    asks Congress to ensure necessary family support/quality of life
    program dollars are in line with the DOD/Military Services overseas
    rebasing and BRAC plans. Further, the Coalition urges Congress to
    insist that support services and infrastructure remain in place at both
    the closing and the gaining installations, throughout the transition
    period.
        The Coalition appreciates the recent congressional enhancements in
    military childcare, family readiness, and supportive counseling
    programs to assist families in dealing with deployments and the return
    of servicemembers. Family support, Quality of Life, and MWR programs
    are especially critical to the readiness of our forces and the support
    of their families during periods of conflict and extended separations.
    In order for these programs to flourish, they require consistent
    sourcing, deliberate outreach, and must remain flexible to meet
    emerging challenges.
        The Military Coalition urges Congress to maintain a well-funded
    family readiness and support structure to enhance family well-being and
    to improve retention and morale.
        The Coalition also asks Congress to highlight and protect the
    interests of all beneficiaries impacted by overseas rebasing, Army
    modularity, and BRAC and ensure support services and infrastructure
    remain in place throughout the entire transition period for all
    beneficiary populations.
        Personnel Strengths.--The Coalition has been disappointed at the
    Defense Department's annual resistance to Congress' repeated offers to
    permanently increase service end strength to relieve the stress on
    today's Armed Forces. While we are encouraged by the subcommittee's
    work to fund increased Army and Marine Corps end strength and much
    needed recruiting and retention bonuses; however, we are deeply
    concerned that administration-proposed plans rely too heavily on overly
    optimistic retention assumptions, overuse of the Guard and Reserves,
    optimistic scenarios in Southwest Asia, and the absence of new
    contingency needs.
        The Department has indicated that it prefers to ``transform''
    forces, placing non-mission essential resources in core war fighting
    skills, and transferring certain functions to civilians. However, any
    such implementation will take a long time while we continue to exhaust
    our downsized forces.
        In addition, the Department is already cutting back even on those
    plans, proposing to reduce six Army National Guard brigades, reduce
    planned growth in the number of active duty brigades, continue
    systematic personnel reductions within the Navy, and impose further
    dramatic reductions in Air Force personnel. Media reports indicate that
    previous plans to civilianize military positions have been changed, and
    that substantial numbers of military positions now will simply be
    eliminated, without civilian replacements--imposing even greater stress
    on the remaining force.
        Force reductions envisioned in the Quadrennial Defense Review are
    being undertaken not because of any reduction in mission, but simply to
    free up billions of dollars for weapons programs.
        Defense leaders warn that the long-term mission against terrorism
    will require sustained, large deployments to Central Asia and
    elsewhere, but the Services are being denied the manpower to meet those
    requirements without unacceptable impacts on members' and families'
    quality of life.
        If the administration does not recognize when extra missions exceed
    the capacity to perform them, Congress must assume that obligation.
    Deferral of additional meaningful action to address this problem cannot
    continue without risking serious consequences.
        The Military Coalition strongly urges funding to sustain end
    strengths to meet mission requirements, and opposition to force
    reductions that have the primary purpose of paying for other programs.
        Dependent Education Needs.--Quality education is an instrumental
    retention tool for DOD--we recruit the member, but retain the family.
    However, many ongoing initiatives--housing privatization, Service
    transformation, overseas rebasing, and BRAC--will have a direct impact
    on the surrounding communities that provide educational programs for
    our military families. A positive step in the right direction is
    reflected by the subcommittee's efforts that provided increased Impact
    Aid funding for highly impacted school districts with significant
    military student enrollment.
        The Coalition urges the subcommittee to continue its priority of
    providing additional funding to support schools educating military
    children.

                            GUARD AND RESERVE ISSUES

        More than a half million members of the National Guard and Reserve
    have been mobilized since September 11, 2001, and many thousands more
    are in the activation pipeline. Today, they face the same challenges as
    their active counterparts, with a deployment pace greater than at any
    time since World War II.
        Guard/Reserve operational tempo has placed enormous strains on
    Reservists, their family members, and their civilian employers that
    were never anticipated by the designers of Guard and Reserve personnel
    and compensation programs.
        The Coalition fully supports the prominent role of the Guard and
    Reserve forces in the national security equation. However, many Guard
    and Reserve members are facing increased family stresses and financial
    burdens under the current policy of multiple extended activations over
    the course of a Reserve career. Many Reserve component leaders are
    rightly alarmed over likely manpower losses if action is not taken to
    relieve pressures on Guard and Reserve troops.
        The Coalition believes it is essential to substantively address
    critical Guard and Reserve personnel, pay, and benefits issues--along
    with active duty manpower increases--to alleviate those pressures and
    help retain these qualified, trained professionals.
        We believe that more must be done to ensure that Guard and Reserve
    members' and their families' readiness remains a viable part of our
    national security strategy. It is clear that our country is absolutely
    dependent on these valuable members of our national military team to
    meet ongoing readiness requirements.
        Guard/Reserve Health Care.--The Military Coalition recognizes
    Congress' significant progress over the last 2 years in authorizing and
    funding ``TRICARE Reserve Select'' coverage for all drilling Guard and
    Reserve members. Nevertheless, the Coalition believes strongly that the
    program approved last year fall short of meeting the needs of these
    members and their families.
        We believe the enrollment fees will prove cost-prohibitive for
    members who have not been mobilized since 9/11, and the high fees
    represent an ill-advised deterrent to members we need to retain in the
    Reserve components. Such fees are particularly unfair for members who
    do not have access to other health insurance coverage.
        The Coalition strongly recommends funding to increase subsidy
    levels for TRICARE coverage for drilling Guard/Reserve members not yet
    mobilized and having one premium for all members of the Guard and
    Reserve who continue to be drilling members.
        Guard and Reserve Family Support Programs.--The increase in Guard
    and Reserve operational tempo is taking a toll on the families of these
    servicemembers. These families are routinely called upon to make more
    and more sacrifices as the global war on terror continues. Reserve
    component families live in communities throughout the Nation, and most
    of these communities are not close to military installations. These
    families face unique challenges in the absence of mobilized members,
    since they don't have access to traditional family support services
    enjoyed by active duty members on military installations.
        Providing a core set of family programs and benefits that meet the
    unique needs of these families is essential to meeting family readiness
    challenges. These programs would promote better communication with
    servicemembers, specialized support for geographically separated Guard
    and Reserve families, and training (and back-up) for family readiness
    volunteers. Such access would include:
      --Web-based assistance programs such as Military OneSource and Guard
            Family.org;
      --Expanded programs between military and community religious leaders
            to support servicemembers and families during all phases of
            deployments;
      --Robust preventive counseling services for servicemembers and
            families and training so they know when to seek professional
            help related to their circumstances;
      --Enhanced education for Guard and Reserve family members about their
            rights and benefits;
      --Meeting needs for occasional child care, particularly for
            preventive respite care, volunteering, and family readiness
            group meetings and drill time;
      --A joint family readiness program to facilitate understanding and
            sharing of information between all family members, no matter
            what the service.
        TMC urges Congress to continue and expand its emphasis on providing
    consistent funding and increased outreach to connect Guard and Reserve
    families with these support programs.
         overseas rebasing, base realignment and closure (brac) issues
        Thousands military members and families will be under great stress
    in the months and years ahead as a result of rebasing, closure, and
    transformation actions. But the impact extends beyond the active duty
    personnel currently assigned to the affected installations. The entire
    local community--school districts, chambers of commerce, Guard/Reserve,
    retirees, survivors, civil servants, and others--experiences the
    traumatic impact of a rebasing or closure action. Jobs are lost or
    transferred, installation support facilities are closed, and
    beneficiaries who relied on the base for support are forced to search
    elsewhere.
        The Coalition urges the subcommittee to ensure rebasing plans are
    not executed without ensuring full support funding is available to
    families as long as they are present at losing installations and before
    they arrive at gaining installations. The critical family support/
    quality of life programs include MWR, childcare, exchanges and
    commissaries, housing, health care, education, family centers, and
    other traditional support programs.
        The Coalition will actively be engaged in ensuring the
    implementations of the BRAC decisions, Service transformation
    initiatives, global repositioning, and Army modularity initiatives not
    only take each beneficiary community into consideration, but also to
    advocate for beneficiaries significantly impacted by these initiatives.
        The Military Coalition urges the subcommittee to monitor the
    implementation of rebasing, BRAC, and Service Transformation
    initiatives to ensure protection of funding for support services for
    all military members and their families.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Military Coalition reiterates its profound gratitude for the
    extraordinary progress this subcommittee has made in funding a wide
    range of personnel and health care initiatives for all uniformed
    services personnel and their families and survivors in recent years.
    The Coalition is eager to continue its work with the subcommittee in
    pursuit of the goals outlined in our testimony. Thank you very much for
    the opportunity to present the Coalition's views on these critically
    important topics.

        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Dr. Edwin Thomas from
    the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies. Good morning.

    STATEMENT OF DR. EDWIN THOMAS, PROFESSOR, FOUNDING
                DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR SOLDIER
                NANOTECHNOLOGIES, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
                OF TECHNOLOGY (MIT)
        Dr. Thomas. Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye.
    I'm a professor at MIT, and it is a great honor to be able to
    testify before this subcommittee. I have written testimony, and
    I have some Powerpoints, and I do not know if you can find
    them. I might take you through them. My testimony is somewhat
    visual, but perhaps I can do it with words, as well.
        Key thing here is that 4 years ago, the Army decided to put
    together a competition for a university affiliated research
    center that would focus on soldier protection using
    nanotechnology. About 50 schools competed, and this university
    affiliated research center was placed at MIT in 2002.
        Well, nanotechnology is certainly in the news these days,
    and the notion here is to try to use nano approaches for
    soldier protection. Of course, a millennia-old problem of how
    to protect soldiers.
        One of the sort of visions of the Institute for Soldier
    Nanotechnology (ISN) is to look at a typical paratrooper, who
    is carrying 120 pounds, a very bulky, heavy, good equipment but
    very burdensome. And these young men and women that we send
    into battle are not as well protected as one would hope, and
    they are burdened with heavy amounts of weight. So the notion
    and the vision of the ISN is to really use nanotechnology to
    dramatically decrease the weight and the volume that the
    warfighters need. So it is basic 6.1 research. It is
    nonclassified on-campus research.
        Our vision is something called a dynamic battle suit. And
    if I might, when you get in your vehicle in the morning, you do
    not ask yourself the question whether or not you take your
    airbag. It is always there. And if you are in an accident, you
    do not reach over and say, ``Ah, time to activate the airbag.''
    The airbag system is all autonomous. It senses a threat, and it
    deploys to mitigate that threat.
        Our notion for soldiers is in fact a dynamic battle suit
    that would have attributes of, kind of, airbags, except these
    would be defense mechanisms that would sense bio and chemical
    threats. They would sense ballistic and blast threats, and they
    would then act quickly, using nanotechnologies to mitigate
    those threats, and protect the soldier.
        Let me take you through three kinds of examples of things
    we've been working on. Some are further off in the future, and
    some are in fact in Iraq right now. The first one is on
    situational awareness. We envision fibers that can actually see
    color and hear. So part of the fabric of the soldier's battle
    suit of the future would have these fibers that would have the
    ability to detect whether a soldier was being lazed, and by
    what wavelength the laser was. So in a sense, they could see in
    color, 360 degrees. This could be terrific, for example,
    avoiding fratricide, identification of friend or foe.
        Another technology that we are working on is body armor. As
    you know, the interceptor body armor right now has been
    improved. I guess if you're not wearing it, it is improved. If
    you're wearing it, it went from 16 pounds to 31 pounds, and so
    we are asking our men and women to carry 31\1/2\ pounds of
    Kevlar and ceramic, not including the batteries and the bullets
    and the water, and all the rest of the kit that they have to
    carry. So a clear need that nano may be able to do something
    about is improved body armor.
        And finally, an area that is something that is actually
    molecules, I'm proud to say, that are made in Cambridge,
    Massachusetts, are working to protect men and women in Iraq.
    These are molecules that can detect TNT, which is the main
    component in the IED threats. Working with an industrial
    partner called Nomadics, a sensor has been developed. The
    sensor works in the hands of an 18-year-old when it is hot and
    muddy and wet. It will actually work underwater. It will work
    in diesel fuel. It is being mounted and incorporated onto
    robots. They've been putting these at checkpoints, and instead
    of having a soldier go up with a handheld device to be able to
    check for TNT in a vehicle or on a person, they are actually
    able to send a robot up and thus get standoff, and save lives.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Edwin L. Thomas

        The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN) is dedicated to
    the development of nano-enabled technologies to protect dismounted
    soldiers. Nanotechnological research approaches have not previously
    been significantly applied to soldier protection, thus presenting many
    opportunities for revolutionary advances in soldier survivability.
    Nanoscience and nanoengineering will lead to the development of new
    materials and properties unattainable with conventional materials. Nano
    allows minaturization and increased response speed for devices, key
    attributes for dramatic improvements of the soldier's kit.

        The ISN mission is to increase capabilities while simultaneously
    decreasing the weight soldiers must carry. Present day soldiers, like
    the young paratrooper from northern Iraq, often carry in excess of 120
    pounds of equipment, which reduces their effectiveness and
    survivability in the field. The ISN is an on-campus basic, 6.1 research
    center (a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC)) started in
    2002. The ISN vision is to design from the ground up, a new battlesuit
    with a number of integrated systems that sense for threats and
    automatically activate protection-on-demand, much in the same way as
    airbags deploy in automobiles. The future battlesuit will include
    sensing subsystems to detect chemical and biological threats as well as
    perform physiological monitoring. It will further provide mechanical
    performance enhancements, integrated power, and informational systems.
    Blast and ballistic protection are of key importance. Novel lightweight
    materials that can adapt and transform their properties are essential
    enabling components. Nanotechnology will help us to realize new
    properties and attributes and to integrate these many functions into
    the uniform. One materials platform we envision is the fabric of the
    uniform itself wherein a diversity of functional nanostructured fibers,
    will be developed which provide massive new capabilities to the soldier
    with an insignificant increase in weight and no loss of mobility. The
    ISN has over 30 active research projects, but today I will focus on
    three examples of new nanotech systems for enhanced situational
    awareness, flexible body armor and IED detection.

        New nanostructured fibers have been developed to detect specific
    wavelengths of light from targeting lasers or to detect a local change
    in surface temperature, for example, from a wound. These fibers are
    comprised of semiconductors, metals and polymers and are produced by a
    drawing process. When illuminated with light, electrical currents are
    generated between the electrodes or if a fiber is exposed to a higher/
    lower temperature, the electrical current is altered. Thus, these
    fibers can ``see'' and ``feel''. We are currently working on additional
    fibers with piezoelectric materials inside, so that the future
    battlesuit can also ``hear.''

        A huge need is to provide future soldiers with lightweight,
    flexible body armor that not only protects from ballistic threats
    (bullets, shrapnel etc.) but also protects from blast pressure waves.
    Current body armor weights 15 lbs. and the new add-on body armor pushes
    the weight up to 31.5 lbs. Engineers create lightweight, stiff and
    strong structures--such as cellphone towers using truss designs. Our
    idea is to extend this concept down to the nanometer regime using
    photolithography to sculpt polymers into ultralight, breatheable
    microtrusses for unprecedented soldier protection. Interestingly, the
    ``nano'' sized nature of the struts in the truss structure imparts
    exciting new toughed mechanical behavior, highly promising for soldier
    protection.

        We have also developed networks of photonic molecular wires for the
    detection of explosives. These materials are electronic plastics that
    absorb and emit light and have a high sensitivity to explosives like
    TNT. The polymer chains have the unusual ability to self-amplify their
    own sensory responses due the transport of energy packets throughout
    the network. This process behaves similarly to a string of holiday
    lights wherein only one light need be broken to cause the entire system
    to become dark. When illuminated using ultraviolet light, the set of
    sensor wires glows green. When molecules of TNT vapor bind to the
    polymers, the fluorescence is quenched--that is the green light goes
    out signaling detection of TNT. To transition our 6.1 proof of concept
    to an actual fieldable technology for the military, the ISN works with
    partner companies, both large and small, distributed throughout the
    United States. MIT has licensed our explosives detection technology to
    Nomadics, a small company based in Oklahoma, which has developed small,
    ultra-sensitive explosive detectors. The Nomadics sensor, known as
    FidoTM, detects vapors of explosives as they pass through a
    capillary containing a nanocoating of the MIT electronic plastic. These
    systems can rapidly detect explosive vapors at distances more than 2
    meters away from the source. Only trained dogs are capable of similar
    detection limits, and hence Fido represents an important new capability
    for our soldiers.

        Fido sensors are undergoing evaluation in Iraq both as hand held
    systems and on robotic platforms. This integrated system can be used at
    checkpoints for vehicle interrogation at safe distances. It can also be
    used for investigating potential roadside bombs and identifying
    individuals who have recently handled explosives. The feedback from
    soldiers in Iraq to date has been very promising. This is a great
    example of how basic research at universities guided by Army needs with
    close coupling to industry has paid off.
        The research portfolio of the ISN continues to evolve as faculty
    bring their ideas on how nano can provide for soldier and first
    responder needs. Exciting new areas of research have been initiated via
    a combination of applications-pull and fundamental discovery-push.
    Science for the soldier is one way that universities can both work at
    the cutting edge of research and help with national needs.

        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you. I do not understand that
    one exhibit you have, which shows the bullet still traveling
    through the fabric. What's that meant to mean?
        Dr. Thomas. What we imagined they are on the bullet going
    to the fabric, these are fibers that would sense temperature.
    So one of the problems is when someone is wounded, the medic
    who comes up doesn't know where the wound is, generally, and
    has to strip search the person, taking off that 120 pounds
    worth of stuff to find the worst wound.
        The notion here is that these fibers would be incorporated
    into the uniform next to the body, and would measure the
    temperature of the body at all times. So when you are wounded,
    the notion is there would be blood flow, say, and then there
    would be a local excursion of temperature that would be a way
    to wirelessly communicate to the medic that (a) ``tell the
    person, tell the medic that someone's down,'' and (b) where to
    look on that person to look for the wound.
        Senator Stevens. Well, we appreciate your statement. We are
    quite interested in that, and we will be pleased to follow up
    on it. I do think that there's a lot to reducing the weight. We
    had one young woman who came to testify, and she weighed less
    than the pack she jumped with. So it is a real problem.
        Dr. Thomas. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Our next witness is Master Chief Joseph Barnes, the
    National Executive Secretary of the Fleet Reserve Association.

    STATEMENT OF MASTER CHIEF JOSEPH L. BARNES, UNITED
                STATES NAVY (RETIRED), NATIONAL EXECUTIVE
                SECRETARY, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION
        Chief Barnes. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
    to present the Fleet Reserve Association's (FRA's) views on the
    2007 defense budget.
        FRA's top priority is supporting adequate funding for
    protective devices, body armor, equipment, and specially
    outfitted combat vehicles, to protect personnel serving in
    Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
        We must also ensure that resources are available so that
    wounded troops, their families, and the survivors of those
    killed in action, are cared for by a grateful nation.
        Fleet Reserve Association is committed to working with
    Congress and DOD to ensure full funding of the defense health
    budget, and ensure access to the health care system for all
    uniformed services beneficiaries. This is critical to readiness
    and the retention of qualified uniform services personnel. FRA
    opposes the establishment of a TRICARE standard enrollment fee,
    and supports the restoration of $735 million to the defense
    health care budget. FRA believes other cost-saving initiatives
    should be implemented as alternatives to DOD's drastic plan to
    shift health care costs to military retirees.
        The association also supports appropriations to make
    TRICARE available on an optional basis for all selected
    reservists and families, on a cost-sharing basis. FRA supports
    appropriations necessary to implement a 2.7 percent across-the-
    board military pay increase on one January 2006, plus funding
    for additional targeted pay increases for senior enlisted
    personnel, and certain officer grades.
        These increases will help achieve additional progress
    toward closing the pay gap between military and civilian pay
    levels. Adequate Active and Reserve end strengths are important
    to maintaining readiness, and FRA strongly supports increasing
    the Marine Corps end strength to 180,000. If force size is
    inadequate and op tempo too intense, the performance of
    individual servicemembers is negatively affected.
        An issue important to FRA's membership is the acceleration
    of SBP paid update from 2008 to 2006 for participants having
    paid premiums for 30 years, and being at least 70 years of age.
    If authorized, the association asks for support from this
    distinguished subcommittee to fund this enhancement.
        FRA also supports funding to maintain the commissary
    benefit, increase Reserve Montgomery G.I. bill (MGIB) education
    benefits, fund family readiness and spouse employment
    opportunities, and supplemental impact aid funding for school
    districts with large numbers of military-sponsored students.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present the
    association's recommendations.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Chief. We appreciate your
    testimony.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Joseph L. Barnes

        Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members of the subcommittee:
    The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is most grateful for your support
    of our military men and women and, particularly, those serving or
    having served in Afghanistan, Iraq and other troubled spots around the
    globe. At the top of the association's gratitude list is the quality of
    life improvements funded during the First Session of the 109th
    Congress. Thanks so much for the effort. FRA appreciates the support to
    making a tough life much easier for those that might make the ultimate
    sacrifice in the service of this Nation. BRAVO ZULU.
        This statement lists the concerns of our members, keeping in mind
    that the association's primary goal is to endorse any positive safety
    programs, rewards, and quality of life improvements that support
    members of the uniformed services, particularly those serving in
    hostile areas, and their families, and survivors.
        FRA remains concerned that many of our sailors, marines and coast
    guardsmen serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation
    Enduring Freedom (OEF) may not be fully armed with the best protective
    devices available for their personal safety. Advocating the funding for
    and receipt of these protective devices; including vehicle protection,
    armor and electronic equipment to disrupt IEDs for every uniformed
    member sent into harm's way is FRA's No. 1 priority.
        The association's next priority is to ensure adequate resources so
    our wounded troops, their families, and the surviving families of the
    men and women killed in action are cared for by a grateful Nation.

                                  HEALTH CARE

        Full Funding for the Defense Health Program: A top priority for FRA
    is to continue to work with Congress and DOD to ensure adequate funding
    for the Defense Health Program in order to meet readiness needs, and
    improve access to all beneficiaries regardless of age, status, or
    location. FRA believes other cost saving options should be reviewed by
    DOD before TRICARE fees are increased as proposed in the
    administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request. DOD has not
    sufficiently investigated other options to make TRICARE more cost-
    efficient as alternatives to shifting costs to retiree beneficiaries
    who have earned this benefit by serving their country.
        FRA recommends making TRICARE a true second-payer to other health
    insurance. The association questions DOD's assumptions about driving
    some 150,000 retirees with other health care coverage away from
    TRICARE.
        DOD should also negotiate with drug manufacturers for retail
    pharmacy discounts, or change the law to mandate Federal pricing for
    the retail pharmacy network. FRA believes this change could result in
    significant savings to the Defense Health System.
        DOD should eliminate all mail-order co-pays to boost use of this
    lowest cost option for beneficiaries to receive prescription
    medications. The elimination of all co-pays will help drive many more
    beneficiaries to this pharmacy cost-savings benefit option.
    Accelerating DOD/VA cost sharing initiatives will ensure full
    implementation of seamless transition, including electronic medical
    records and one stop military discharge physicals--all strongly
    supported by FRA.
        The proposed future fee adjustments which are pegged to health care
    inflation will also significantly erode the value of retired pay,
    particularly for enlisted retirees who retired prior to larger and
    targeted recent pay adjustments enacted to close the pay gap. Military
    service is very different from work in the corporate world and requires
    service in often life threatening duty commitments and the associated
    benefits offered in return must be commensurate with these realities.

                           PROTECT PERSONNEL PROGRAMS

        FRA is concerned about DOD's apparent decision to reduce end
    strength to pay for weapons systems. DOD's priority of money for
    weapons before people will have an impact on retention and recruitment.
        Active Duty Pay.--FRA supports additional annual active duty pay
    increases that are at least .05 percent above the Employment Cost Index
    (ECI) along with increases for mid-career and senior enlisted personnel
    to help close the pay gap between active duty and private sector pay,
    and work to restore the ratio of pay between junior and senior enlisted
    personnel which existed prior to the advent of the All Volunteer Force.
        For fiscal year 2007, the administration recommended a 2.2 percent
    across the board basic pay increase for members of the Armed Forces.
    This increase will be the smallest increase since 1994.
        The statutory requirement to peg annual active duty pay adjustments
    at 0.5 percent above the Employment Cost Index (ECI) expired in fiscal
    year 2006. Compensation is directly related to recruitment and
    retention of quality personnel in an all-volunteer environment and FRA
    believes that maintaining a high level of morale and readiness is
    critical in winning the war on terror. With the addition of targeted
    raises authorized by Congress since fiscal year 2001, the formula has
    reduced the pay gap with the private sector from 13.5 percent to 4.4
    percent. These targeted pay increases for middle grade and senior petty
    and noncommissioned officers and warrant officers have contributed
    significantly to improved morale, readiness, and retention, and the
    Association strongly supports targeted increases for fiscal year 2007.
        Military service is very different from work in the private sector
    and often involves life threatening duty assignments, with long periods
    of separation from service member's families. Their pay and benefits
    must reflect these realities.
        Commissaries.--FRA supports adequate funding for the Defense
    Commissary Agency (DeCA) to preserve the value of the current benefit
    for all patrons. FRA is concerned about store closures, staff
    reductions, or other initiatives that may diminish the scope and
    quality of the benefit.
        Family Readiness and Support.--FRA supports a well-funded family
    readiness and support structure to enhance family cohesion that will
    improve retention and recruitment. It's most important that DOD and the
    military services concentrate on providing information and education
    programs for the families of our service members. There are a number of
    existing spousal and family programs that have been fine tuned and are
    successfully contributing to the well-being of this community. The
    Navy's Fleet and Family Centers and the Marines' Marine Corps Community
    Services (MCCS) and Family Services programs are providing
    comprehensive, 24/7 information and referral services to the service
    member and family through its One Source links. One Source is
    particularly beneficial to mobilized reservists and families who are
    unfamiliar with benefits and services available to them.
        It's true that ``the servicemember enlists in the military
    service--but it's the family that reenlists.'' To ensure the family
    opts for a uniformed career, the family must be satisfied with life in
    the military. To assist in bringing that satisfaction, FRA recommends
    the following.
        Child and Youth Programs.--Both programs rank high in priority for
    the families of sailors and marines. As an integral support system for
    mission readiness and deployments, its imperative these programs
    continue to be improved and expanded to cover the needs of both married
    and single parents. Currently, the Navy's program cares for over 31,000
    children 6 months to 12 years in 227 facilities, and in 3,180 on and
    off base licensed child development homes. However the Navy continues
    to fall short on child care development homes. Access to child care is
    important and FRA urges Congress to authorize adequate funding for this
    important benefit.
        Spousal Employment.--The association urges Congress to continue its
    support of the military's effort to affect a viable spousal employment
    program and to authorize sufficient funds to assure the program's
    success. Today's all-volunteer environment requires the services to
    consider the whole family. It is no longer adequate to focus only on
    the morale and financial well-being of the member. Now, his or her
    family must be considered. A major consideration for spousal employment
    is that it could be a stepping-stone to retention of the service
    member--a key participant in the defense of this Nation.
        DOD Schools.--FRA recommends that the subcommittee provide the
    necessary funds to continue the effective operation of the Department
    of Defense's school system and to cease and desist from using
    appropriated funds to find ways and means to close or transfer its
    school system to local school districts. Further threats of closures
    impact the morale of our Nation's military personnel and families. FRA
    notes with concern the Department of Defense's (DOD's) repeated quest
    to close some or all DOD-sponsored schools operating on military
    installations in CONUS. FRA is adamantly opposed to reducing the
    quality of education now enjoyed by the children of military personnel
    by forcing them to enroll in public schools.
        Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs (MWR).--FRA recommends the
    subcommittee increase funding for MWR programs. FRA believes these
    programs are vital to supporting the servicemember and his or her
    family. They include recreation, fitness, social and community support
    activities, spouse employment, personal financial management,
    counseling, family advocacy, safety, transition and relocation
    programs--all having a positive affect on fleet readiness. Sailors have
    consistently ranked fitness centers and gyms available to them a top
    priority and are the most used MWR program.
        Currently, the shortage of funds is curtailing or closing some of
    the activities while the costs of participating in others have recently
    increased. Regarding Navy fitness centers, the biggest challenge is to
    update older fitness structures and providing the right equipment, and
    ensure availability of trained staff.
        Active Duty and Reserve Component Personnel End Strengths.--FRA
    strongly supports adequate end strength to win the war on terror and to
    maintain other needed military commitments around the world. America is
    at war and FRA believes the Sea Services should have adequate numbers
    of personnel to meet the demands of fighting the war on terror and
    sustain other operational commitments. Many are concerned that the
    fiscal year 2007 DOD budget request sacrifices manpower for technology
    and does not address adequate service end strengths. Accordingly, FRA
    strongly supports increased USMC end strength of 180,000. The
    association is also concerned about the impact of Navy end strength
    reductions of 12,000, a 3 percent cut from last year. Inadequate end
    strengths increase stress on the military personnel and their families
    and contribute to greater reliance on the Guard and Reserves.
        Education Funding.--FRA strongly supports supplemental Impact Aid
    for highly impacted school districts. FRA is most appreciative for the
    Impact Aid authorized in previous defense measures. FRA believes it is
    important to ensure our service members, many serving in harm's way,
    have less concern about their children's educations but more to do with
    the job at hand.
        Reform of PCS Process.--FRA supports upgrading permanent change-of-
    station allowances to reflect the expenses members are forced to incur
    in complying with government-directed relocations. Specifically, the
    overwhelming majority of service families own two privately owned
    vehicles, driven by the financial need for the spouse to work, or the
    distance some families must live from an installation and its support
    services. FRA supports funding necessary to ship a second POV at
    government expense to overseas accompanied assignments. In many
    overseas locations, families have difficulty managing without a second
    family vehicle because family housing is often not co-located with
    installation support services. FRA also continues to support resources
    necessary to provide full replacement value for lost or damaged
    household goods during the PCS process.

                                 RESERVE ISSUES

        FRA stands foursquare in support of the Nation's Reservists. They
    were once known as ``weekend warriors.'' But today, it's a different
    story. Given the pressure of the war on terror, Reserve units are now
    increasingly being mobilized to augment active duty components. Up to
    75 percent of the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve has been mobilized, with
    many members serving multiple tours of active duty in support of
    contingency operations. More than 5,000 Reserve sailors are mobilized,
    mostly in the desert. In fact, wherever active-duty marines are engaged
    around the world, Marine Reservists are there.
        Inadequate benefits for Reservists and the Guard can only undermine
    long-term retention and readiness. Because of increasing demands on
    these personnel to perform multiple missions abroad over longer periods
    of time, it's essential to improve compensation and benefits packages
    to attract recruits and retain currently serving personnel.
        Healthcare.--FRA supports making the TRICARE program available on
    an optional basis for all selected Reservists and families on a cost-
    sharing basis. FRA recommends funding to increase subsidy levels for
    TRICARE coverage for drilling Reserve members not yet mobilized and
    having one premium for all members of the Guard and Reserve who
    continue to be drilling members. TRICARE Reserve Select is a very
    important benefit, particularly because consistency of healthcare
    benefits and continuity of care are major concerns for Reserve
    personnel and their families. DOD must rely more heavily upon the Guard
    and Reserve personnel to prosecute the war and sustain other
    operational commitments. In addition, deployments are also becoming
    longer and more frequent and these personnel are indispensable to our
    Armed Forces.
        Retirement.--FRA recommends that Congress reduce the age when
    Reserve members are eligible for retirement pay, particularly for those
    members who have experienced extended mobilizations.
        Family Readiness.--FRA supports more emphasis on providing
    consistent funding and increased outreach to connect Guard and Reserve
    families with these support programs. FRA therefore supports increasing
    funding for family readiness especially for those geographically
    dispersed and not readily accessible to military installations and
    inexperienced with the military. Unlike active duty families who often
    live near military facilities and support services, many Reserve
    families live in civilian communities. This poses a major challenge for
    them, because military information and support is not readily
    available. Congressional hearing witnesses have indicated that many of
    the half million mobilized Guard and Reserve personnel have not
    received transition assistance services they and their families need to
    make a successful transition back to civilian life.

                                 BASE CLOSINGS

        BRAC.--FRA strongly supports resources to support retention of
    military treatment and other facilities at BRAC sites that are
    patronized by sizeable retiree and Reserve populations. Thousands of
    military members and families will be under great stress in the months
    and years ahead as a result of rebasing, closure, and transformation
    actions. But the impact extends beyond the active duty personnel
    currently assigned to the affected installations. The entire
    beneficiary community--Reserve, retirees, survivors, veterans, and
    others--experience the traumatic impact of a realignment and closure
    actions. Support facilities are usually closed, and beneficiaries who
    relied on the base for support are forced to search elsewhere.

                                   CONCLUSION

        FRA is grateful for the opportunity to present the organization's
    views to this distinguished subcommittee. The association reiterates
    its profound gratitude for the extraordinary progress this subcommittee
    has made in advancing a wide range of military personnel benefits and
    quality-of-life programs for all uniformed services personnel and their
    families and survivors. Thank you again for the opportunity to present
    the FRA' views on these critically important topics.

        Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Lesli Foster of
    Channel 9 News.
        I hope you all realize what we are doing. There are votes
    going on on the floor, and Senator Inouye goes to vote, and
    then he comes back, and then I go to vote. Thank you.
        Good morning.

    STATEMENT OF LESLI FOSTER MATHEWSON, WEEKEND ANCHOR,
                CHANNEL 9 NEWS, WASHINGTON, DC
    ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN MATHEWSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE HSC
                FOUNDATION

        Ms. Foster. Good morning. Chairman Stevens, thank you for
    the opportunity to share my thoughts. My name is Lesli Foster
    Mathewson, and I am a news anchor and reporter for WUSATV9 in
    Washington, DC. I am here today with my husband, a proud
    prostate cancer survivor, to share our story about fighting
    this disease.
        I feel it is personally important for us to be here because
    cancer happens to the family, not just the man who is impacted
    by the disease.
        Our story is that 89 days after we got married in September
    2004, my husband was diagnosed with prostate cancer. I was
    stunned, scared, and worried about the prospect of what I'd do
    without the love of my life. And I thought, like many, that
    prostate cancer was a disease that struck only older men. My
    grandfather succumbed to prostate cancer just 4 years earlier.
        It is still hard for me to reconcile this in my head some
    days, because John was active and committed to healthy living,
    and we had a lifetime ahead of us. Why him? Why us?
        Surgery was the best option because of the age and stage of
    his particular cancer, but his treatment did present one
    significant challenge. We would have a good chance to eradicate
    the cancer from his body, but in doing so we would lose our
    opportunity to conceive children naturally. We only had 6 weeks
    prior to his surgery to try and conceive, and thankfully, we
    were able to get pregnant with what we call our miracle baby
    before my husband had his surgery in February 2005 at Johns
    Hopkins. We gave birth to our daughter, Jordan Elise, in
    October of last year, and best of all, John has remained
    cancer-free.
        I am relieved and feel incredibly blessed to know that John
    is healthy, and we certainly hope that he will be around for us
    to celebrate many more years together, and he'll be able to see
    our daughter grow up. But I am always concerned about his
    cancer because we still need to do more research to determine
    why young men like him are being stricken at alarming rates,
    and what if anything we can do to prevent this disease.
        Mr. Mathewson. Senator Stevens, thank you also for the
    opportunity to share my thoughts. My name is John Mathewson,
    and I serve as Executive Vice President of the HSC Foundation,
    a nonprofit hospital system based here in Washington. I am
    especially proud to be here with my rock and pillar, my wife. I
    am so fortunate that she was and is unwavering in her support.
        Shocked, scared, queasy, why me. At 45 years old, at the
    time I was too young. It doesn't run in my family. I do not
    smoke. How long do I have to live? Will it hurt? My wife is
    only 30. Those are just some of the thoughts that ran through
    my mind on December 2, 2004. I understand how to access the
    health care system. Outside of my age, my greatest risk factor
    for prostate cancer was being an African-American male.
        And like so many other diseases, the incidence among black
    men compared to other culture groups is agonizing. We tend to
    be diagnosed later, have a form of the disease that advances
    faster, and have a higher mortality rate than whites. Good
    treatment options are fine, but wouldn't it be better if we
    could do a better job of preventing the disease in the first
    place?
        I should share that since I had been treated, one of my
    older brothers has also now been diagnosed with the disease. He
    was 62 at the time, and had never had a PSA exam. So now all
    the remaining four of my brothers must get checked annually.
        If I could leave you with two things today, they would be
    this: the public as well as primary care physicians need better
    education about prostate cancer. I had a false sense of
    security about my health, largely revolving around the
    education that is available for prostate cancer prevention,
    because I didn't know enough until I was finally treated at
    Hopkins.
        The next is that it takes 5 to 7 years to develop this
    disease. So waiting until age 40 to educate African-American
    men is too late. It needs to begin in their 30s.
        I also hope that there is a significant acknowledgment
    about how deadly this disease is for all men. All men are at
    risk.
        In closing, I want to say that we support the National
    Prostate Cancer Coalition, and I urge you to fund the Prostate
    Cancer Research Program in the Department of Defense at $85
    million for fiscal year 2007. We urge you to continue to
    support these programs that provide access to new discoveries
    that will help us understand and cure prostate cancer.
        This concludes our testimony. Thank you for the privilege
    to present our story.
        Senator Stevens. And thank you very much, both of you. I
    guess you know I'm a survivor of prostate cancer also, so I
    appreciate your testimony very much.
        I'm going to go out of order and ask Dr. Polly to come up
    now, with Senator Inouye's consent. I am going to have to leave
    and not come back because I'm one of the people that has to go
    meet the Speaker for the joint session. But Dr. Polly, Senator
    Inouye knows, is the only reason I'm sitting up here, and can
    walk and run and play tennis and lift weights. So I honor you,
    Doctor, and would like to hear your statement.

    STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID W. POLLY, JR., M.D., ON BEHALF
                OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC
                SURGEONS
        Dr. Polly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dr. David
    Polly, and I'm speaking on behalf of the American Academy of
    Orthopaedic Surgeons.
        As a graduate of West Point and an airborne ranger who
    served as a line officer in the Army, I subsequently attended
    medical school at the Uniformed Services University, and then
    trained in orthopaedic surgery at Walter Reed. I have
    personally cared for injured soldiers at Walter Reed during
    four different military conflicts, and have served in a war
    zone as a military orthopaedic surgeon. My last assignment
    before retiring was as chair of Orthopaedic Surgery at Walter
    Reed.
        I'm here today to thank the members of the subcommittee for
    establishing and funding the fiscal year 2006 orthopaedic
    trauma research program at the Institute of Surgical Research,
    at Brooke. I urge continuation of funding for this vital
    program. More than half of the trauma out of Afghanistan and
    Iraq is orthopaedic related, with a vast majority being to the
    upper and lower extremities, as well as the spine.
        Body armor, as you've heard earlier, does a remarkable job
    of protecting the soldier's torso, but his or her extremities
    are particularly vulnerable, especially to IEDs. Wounded
    soldiers who have died in previous conflicts are now surviving,
    and have to recover from these devastating injuries. These
    injuries are producing unprecedented numbers of mangled
    extremities, with severe reconstructive challenge. And
    infection is often a problem.
        What has been done so far? An extremity war injury
    symposium was held here in Washington, DC, in January 2006 as a
    partnership between organized orthopaedic surgery industry and
    military surgeons. And I'd like to thank you, sir, for
    attending that conference. Proceedings of the symposium
    included a list of prioritized research needs that closely
    parallels those released on February 13 for the Orthopaedic
    Trauma Research Program.
        Among these priorities include reduction of infection,
    improved healing of segmental bone defects, and many others.
        The intent of the Orthopaedic Trauma Research Program is to
    foster collaboration between civilian and military orthopaedic
    surgeons and researchers. Civilian researchers have the
    expertise and the resources to assist their military colleagues
    with the growing number of musculoskeletal war wound
    challenges, to augment military research efforts. This
    collaboration will provide wide-ranging benefits to civilian
    trauma patients, as well.
        Senator Stevens. Doctor, I'm summoned. I do thank you for
    coming. And again, I honor you, my friend. Thank you.
        Dr. Polly. Thank you, sir.
        Early stages of the program revealed a strong interest.
    Close to 100 pre-proposals have been received, totaling over
    $20 million in requests. Of these, 76 merited full proposal
    submission, and will be reviewed in July. Intelligence
    surveillance reconnaissance (ISR) expects to receive much
    higher numbers of proposals in subsequent years when the time
    line is less compressed.
        With orthopedic trauma being the most common form of trauma
    seen in military conflicts, it is crucial that there be funding
    dedicated specifically to the enhancement of orthopaedic trauma
    research. The academy has worked closely with top orthopaedic
    surgeons in the military to identify the gaps in research and
    care, and the needs are overwhelming. Especially considering
    that military trauma is not a research focus for the National
    Institutes of Health (NIH).
        I commend Congress for its commitment to amputee care
    funding, but our goal must be to do everything we can to avoid
    having this need to provide this care, and to salvage these
    injured limbs in the first place. Expanded Federal commitment
    to the orthopaedic extremity trauma research program would move
    us closer to this goal. On behalf of America's soldiers,
    military orthopedic surgeons, and the American Academy of
    Orthopaedic Surgeons, I respectfully request that the
    subcommittee continue the Orthopaedic Trauma Research Program
    at a funding level of $25 million. As this program is only in
    its infancy, continuity is critical to its future success.
        Thank you once again for this opportunity, and I'd be glad
    to answer any questions.
        Senator Inouye [presiding]. You may be assured that we will
    do our best, sir.
        Dr. Polly. Yes, sir. Thank you for your efforts in the
    past, and your continuing efforts today.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of David W. Polly, Jr.

        Chairman Stevens, ranking member Inouye, Members of the Senate
    Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. My name is David W. Polly, Jr., M.D., and I speak today
    on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), of
    which I am an active member, as well as on behalf of military and
    civilian orthopaedic surgeons involved in orthopaedic trauma research
    and care.
        I am a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point
    and as an airborne ranger, served as a line officer in the Army.
    Subsequently, I attended medical school at the Uniformed Services
    University of the Health Sciences and trained in orthopaedic surgery at
    Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I have personally cared for injured
    soldiers at Walter Reed during four different military conflicts and
    have been deployed to a war zone as a military orthopaedic surgeon. My
    last assignment was as chair of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
    and Rehabilitation at Walter Reed. I retired at the end of 2003 after
    more than 24 years of service. I am currently professor of Orthopaedic
    Surgery and Chief of Spine Surgery at the University of Minnesota.
        First and foremost, I am here today to thank the Members of this
    subcommittee for establishing funding in fiscal year 2006 for the
    Orthopaedic Trauma Research Program (OTRP) and urge continuation of
    funding for this vital program. I will discuss the common types of
    orthopaedic trauma seen out of Iraq and Afghanistan and offer a
    military perspective on the direction in which orthopaedic research
    should head in order to better care for soldiers afflicted with
    orthopaedic trauma. Finally, I will provide an update on the progress
    of OTRP, which is administered by the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical
    Research (USAISR).

    ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA FROM OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING
                                    FREEDOM

        The Armed Forces are attempting to return significantly injured
    soldiers to full function or limit their disabilities to a functional
    level in the case of the most severe injuries. The ability to provide
    improved recovery of function moves toward the goal of keeping injured
    soldiers part of the Army or service team. Moreover, when they do leave
    the Armed Forces, these rehabilitated soldiers have a greater chance of
    finding worthwhile occupations outside of the service to contribute
    positively to society. The Army believes that it has a duty and
    obligation to provide the highest level of care and rehabilitation to
    those men and women who have suffered the most while serving the
    country.
        It probably comes as no surprise that more than half of the trauma
    seen out of Iraq and Afghanistan is orthopaedic-related, especially
    upper and lower extremity and spine. From October, 2001 through
    January, 2005, extremity injuries alone accounted for 54 percent of the
    wounds sustained in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation
    Enduring Freedom (OEF) according to the Joint Theater Trauma Registry,
    a database of medical treatment information from a theater of combat
    operations treated at U.S. Army medical treatment facilities. Other
    reports suggest this number is closer to 60-70 percent for OIF, and
    these estimates do not include non-American and civilians receiving
    medical care through U.S. military facilities. By comparison to
    previous wars, the current conflicts are experiencing a greater
    proportion of upper extremity fractures in particular.
        Of 256 battle casualties treated at the Landstuhl Regional Medical
    Center in Germany during the first 2 months of OIF, 68 percent
    sustained an extremity injury. The reported mechanism of injury was
    explosives in 48 percent, gun-shot wounds in 30 percent and blunt
    trauma in 21 percent. As the war has moved from an offensive phase to
    the current counter-insurgency campaign, higher rates of injuries from
    explosives can be expected. (Johnson BA. Carmack D, Neary M, et al.
    Operation Iraqi Freedom: the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center
    experience. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2005; 44:177-183.) According to the
    JTTR, between 2001 and 2005, explosive mechanisms accounted for 78
    percent of the war injuries compared to 18 percent from gun shots.
        While medical and technological advancements, as well as the use of
    fast-moving Forward Surgical Teams, have dramatically decreased the
    lethality of war wounds, wounded soldiers who may have died in previous
    conflicts from their injuries are now surviving and have to learn to
    recover from devastating injuries. While body armor does a great job of
    protecting a soldier's torso, his or her extremities are particularly
    vulnerable during attacks.
    Characteristics of Military Orthopaedic Trauma
        According to the New England Journal of Medicine, blast injuries
    are producing an unprecedented number of ``mangled extremities''--limbs
    with severe soft-tissue and bone injuries. (``Casualties of War--
    Military Care for the Wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan,'' NEJM,
    December 9, 2004). The result of such trauma is open, complex wounds
    with severe bone fragmentation. Often there is nerve damage, as well as
    damage to tendons, muscles, vessels, and soft-tissue. In these types of
    wounds, infection is often a problem. According to the JTTR, 53 percent
    of the extremity wounds are classified as penetrating soft-tissue
    wounds, while fractures compose 26 percent of extremity wounds. Other
    types of extremity wounds composing less than 5 percent each are burns,
    sprains, nerve damage, abrasions, amputations, contusions,
    dislocations, and vascular injuries.
    Military Versus Civilian Orthopaedic Trauma
        While there are similarities between orthopaedic military trauma
    and the types of orthopaedic trauma seen in civilian settings, there
    are several major differences that must be noted. First, with
    orthopaedic military trauma, there are up to five echelons of care,
    unlike in civilian settings when those injured are most likely to
    receive the highest level of care immediately. Instead, wounded
    soldiers get passed from one level of care to the next, with each level
    of care implementing the most appropriate type of care in order to
    ensure the best possible outcome. The surgeon in each subsequent level
    of care must try to recreate what was previously done. In addition, a
    majority of injured soldiers have to be medevaced to receive care and
    transportation is often delayed due to weather or combat conditions. It
    has been our experience that over 65-percent of the trauma is urgent
    and requires immediate attention.
        Second, soldiers wounded are often in fair or poor health, are
    frequently malnourished, and usually fatigued due to the demanding
    conditions. This presents many complicating factors when determining
    the most appropriate care.
        Third, the setting in which care is initially provided to wounded
    soldiers is less than ideal, to say the least, especially in comparison
    to a sterile hospital setting. The environment, such as that seen in
    Iraq and Afghanistan, is dusty and hot, leading to concerns about
    sterilization of the hospital setting. For example, infection from
    acinetobacter baumanni, a ubiquitous organism found in the desert soil
    of Afghanistan and Iraq, is extremely common. In addition, the surgical
    environment is under constant threat of attack by insurgents. In fact,
    a considerable percentage of the care provided by military surgeons is
    for injured Iraqis, both friendly and hostile. Finally, the surgical
    team is faced with limited resources that make providing the highest
    level of care difficult.
        While, as I have stated, there are many unique characteristics of
    orthopaedic military trauma, there is no doubt that research done on
    orthopaedic military trauma benefits trauma victims in civilian
    settings. Many of the great advancements in orthopaedic trauma care
    have been made during times of war, such as the external fixateur,
    which has been used extensively during the current conflict as well as
    in civilian care.
    Future Needs of Orthopaedic Trauma Research
        An Extremity War Injuries (EWI) Symposium was held in Washington,
    DC on January 24-27, 2006. This extraordinary symposium was a
    partnership effort between organized orthopaedic surgery, military
    surgeons and industry. It was attended by 98 military and civilian
    physicians and researchers committed to the care of extremity injuries.
    The symposium addressed current challenges in the management of
    extremity trauma associated with recent combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        The focus of the symposium was to identify opportunities to improve
    the care for the sons and daughters of America who have been injured
    serving our Nation. Proceedings from the symposium included a list of
    prioritized research needs:
        Timing of Treatment.--Better data are necessary to establish best
    practices with regard to timing of debridement, timing of temporary
    stabilization and timing of definitive stabilization. Development of
    animal models of early versus late operative treatment of open injuries
    may be helpful. Prospective clinical comparisons of treatment groups
    will be helpful in gaining further understanding of the relative role
    of surgical timing on outcomes.
        Techniques of Debridement.--More information is necessary about
    effective means of demonstrating adequacy of debridement. Current
    challenges, particularly for surgeons with limited experience in wound
    debridement, exist in understanding how to establish long-term tissue
    viability or lack thereof at the time of an index operative
    debridement. Since patients in military settings are typically
    transferred away from the care of the surgeon performing the initial
    debridement prior to delivery of secondary care, opportunities to learn
    about the efficacy of initial procedures are lost. Development of
    animal models of blast injury could help establish tissue viability
    markers. Additional study is necessary to understand ideal frequencies
    and techniques of debridement.
        Transport Issues.--Clinical experience suggests that current air
    evacuation techniques are associated with development of complications
    in wound and extremity management although the specific role of
    individual variables in the genesis of these complications is unclear.
    Possible contributing factors include altitude, hypothermia and
    secondary wound contamination. Clinical and animal models are necessary
    to help develop an understanding of transport issues. Development,
    testing and approval of topical negative pressure devices for use
    during aeromedical transport should be facilitated.
        Coverage Issues.--Controlled studies defining the role of timing of
    coverage in outcome following high-energy extremity war injuries are
    lacking. Also necessary is more information about markers and
    indicators to help assess the readiness of a wound and host for
    coverage procedures. Both animal modeling and clinical marker
    evaluation are necessary to develop understanding in this area.
        Antibiotic Treatments.--Emergence of resistant organisms continues
    to provide challenges in the treatment of infection following high-
    energy extremity war injuries. Broader prophylaxis likely encourages
    development of antibiotic resistance. In the context of a dwindling
    pipeline of new antibiotics, particularly those directed toward gram-
    negative organisms, development of new technologies to fight infection
    is necessary. This patient population offers opportunity to assess
    efficacy of vaccination against common pathogens. Partnerships with
    infectious disease researchers currently involved in addressing similar
    questions should be developed.
        Management of Segmental Bone Defects.--A multitude of different
    techniques for management of segmental bone defects is available. These
    include bone transport, massive onlay grafting with and without use of
    recombinant proteins, delayed allograft reconstruction, and acute
    shortening. While some techniques are more appropriate than others
    after analysis of other clinical variables, controlled trials comparing
    efficacy between treatment methods are lacking. Variables that may
    affect outcome can be grouped according to patient characteristics
    including co-morbidities, injury characteristics including severity of
    bony and soft-tissue wounds, and treatment variables including method
    of internal fixation selected. Evaluation of new technologies for
    treatment of segmental bone defects should include assessment of
    efficacy with adequate control for confounding variables and assessment
    of cost-effectiveness.
        Development of an Animal Model.--A large animal survival military
    blast injury model is necessary to serve as a platform for multiple
    research questions including: VAC v. bead pouch v. dressing changes;
    Wound cleaning strategy; Effect of topical antibiotics; Modulation of
    inflammatory response; Timing of wound closure; and Vascular shunt
    utilization.
        Amputee Issues.--Development and validation of ``best practice''
    guidelines for multidisciplinary care of the amputee is essential.
    Treatment protocols should be tested clinically. Studies should be
    designed to allow for differentiation between the impacts of the
    process versus the device on outcome. Failure analysis as a tool to
    evaluate efficacy of treatment protocols and elucidate shortcomings
    should be utilized. Clinically, studies should focus on defining
    requirements for the residual limb length necessary to achieve success
    without proceeding to higher level amputation. Outcomes based
    comparisons of amputation techniques for similar injuries and similar
    levels should be performed. Use of local tissue lengthening and free
    tissue transfer techniques should be evaluated. In the context of
    current results and increasing levels of expectation for function
    following amputation, development of more sensitive and military
    appropriate outcomes monitors is necessary.
        Heterotopic Ossification.--Animal models of heterotopic
    ossification should be utilized to develop early markers for
    heterotopic ossification development that could identify opportunities
    for prevention. Better information is needed about burden of disease
    including prevalence following amputation for civilian versus military
    trauma and frequency with which symptoms develop. Treatment methods
    such as surgical debridement, while effective, necessarily interrupt
    rehabilitation. Prevention could expedite recovery and potentially
    improve outcome.
        Data Collection System.--A theme common to virtually all
    discussions on research and patient care for our soldiers has been the
    need for access to better longitudinal patient data. Current patient
    care processes both in theatre and at higher echelon care centers do
    not include data captured in a way that allows simple electronic
    linkage of medical records from one level of care to the next. At least
    two electronic medical records systems are in use, and they are not
    necessarily compatible with one another. Any electronic medical record
    used should be web based to allow for linkage of patient data from the
    earliest echelon of documented care through the VA system. The system
    must be user friendly and not cumbersome to encourage entry of
    information critical to outcomes analysis. An example of one system
    with some of the necessary components is the current Joint Patient
    Tracking Application (JPTA). The system unfortunately lacks integration
    with a trauma registry or database to allow for retrospective or
    prospective analyses of specific injuries and treatments. Funding is
    necessary for platform development, information systems infrastructure
    and data entry personnel.
    Stories from the Frontlines
        There have been many heroic stories of injured soldiers struggling
    to regain function and to return to normal life, or even back to
    service. A story highlighted in a March 2005 National Public Radio
    (NPR) series titled ``Caring for the Wounded: The Story of Two
    Marines,'' followed two Marines injured in Iraq: 1st Sgt. Brad Kasal
    and Lance Cpl. Alex Nicoll. Lance Cpl. Nicoll had to have his left leg
    amputated as a result of his injuries from gunshot wounds. Nicoll has
    undergone physical therapy at Walter Reed to adjust to his new
    prosthetic leg, made from graphite and titanium. While Sgt. Kasal was
    so seriously injured that he lost four inches of bone in his right leg,
    due to medical advances in limb salvaging, he did not have to have his
    leg amputated. Kasal underwent a bone growth procedure, called the
    Illizarov Technique, which grows the bone one millimeter a day.
        The Iraq war has created the first group of female amputees. Lt.
    Dawn Halfaker is one of approximately 11 military women who have lost
    limbs from combat injuries in Iraq, compared to more than 350 men. She
    lost her arm to a life-threatening infection, after sustaining major
    injuries, along with another soldier, when on a reconnaissance patrol
    in Baqouba, Iraq, a rocket-propelled grenade exploded inside her
    armored Humvee. Maj. Ladda ``Tammy'' Duckworth lost both legs when a
    rocker-propelled grenade slammed into her Black Hawk helicopter near
    Balad. Juanita Wilson, an Army staff sergeant, lost her left hand when
    an improvised bomb exploded near her Humvee on a convoy mission north
    of Baghdad. All three women are successfully moving forward in military
    or civilian careers.
        Bone problems, seldom seen in soldiers from previous wars who have
    lost limbs, have complicated recoveries for Iraq and Afghanistan-
    stationed soldiers. Heterotopic ossification, or H.O., a condition in
    which bone grows where it doesn't belong, has developed in nearly 60
    percent of 318 amputees treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
    Nearly 70 patients from across the military have been treated for H.O.
    at Brooke Army Medical Center. Rarely occurring in civilian amputees,
    high-intensity blasts, which can shred muscles, tendons and bone,
    appears to stimulate adult stem cells to heal damage, but repair
    signals often go awry. Advances in body armor resulting in higher
    survival rates and ability to preserve more damaged tissue, have lead
    to the high number of H.O. cases where little research exists on how to
    treat the condition among amputees. (``Bone condition hampers soldiers'
    recovery,'' USA TODAY, February 12, 2006)
        These stories clearly illustrate the benefits of, and need for,
    orthopaedic trauma research for America's soldiers.
    Orthopaedic Trauma Research Program
        The AAOS and military and civilian orthopaedic surgeons and
    researchers are grateful that the subcommittee included language in the
    fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill to create the
    ``Orthopaedic Trauma Research Program'' (OTRP) as part of the Medical
    Research and Material Command's (MRMC) medical research program,
    administered by the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research (USAISR)
    at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
        The OTRP is the first program created in the Department of Defense
    dedicated exclusively to funding peer-reviewed intramural and
    extramural orthopaedic trauma research. Having the program administered
    by the USAISR ensures that the research funding follows closely the
    research priorities laid out by the Army and the Armed Forces, and
    ensures collaboration between military and civilian research
    facilities. USAISR has extensive experience administering similar grant
    programs and is the only Department of Defense Research laboratory
    devoted solely to improving combat casualty care.
        The intent of the OTRP is to foster collaboration between civilian
    and military orthopaedic surgeons and researchers. Civilian researchers
    have the expertise and resources to assist their military colleagues
    with the growing number of patients and musculoskeletal war wound
    challenges, to build a parallel research program in the military.
    Civilian investigators are interested in advancing the research and
    have stepped up to engage in these efforts, which will also provide
    wide ranging benefits to civilian trauma patients as well.
        It is important to note that military orthopaedic surgeons, in
    addition to personnel at the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel
    Command, Fort Detrick, have had significant input into the creation of
    this program and fully support its goals. The $7.5 million awarded for
    OTRP in fiscal year 2006 is hopefully the beginning of a stronger focus
    of a core mission in the military to dedicate Department of Defense
    research resources to injured soldiers.
        The Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for the OTRP grants was
    released on February 13, 2006, and identified the following basic,
    transitional and clinical research funding priorities: Improved healing
    of segmental bone defects; improved healing of massive soft tissue
    defects; improved wound healing; tissue viability assessment and wound
    irrigation and debridement technologies; reduction in wound infection;
    prevention of heterotopic ossification; demographic and injury data on
    the modern battlefield and the long-term outcomes of casualties (i.e.
    joint theatre trauma registry); and improved pre-hospital care of
    orthopaedic injuries.
        The number of full proposals submitted under this program will be
    up to 76 grant applications by the time they are reviewed, expected in
    July of this year. This number is relatively high considering the
    shortened time period this year for submitting pre-proposals, due by
    the first week in May, and considering the funding level of $7.5
    million. Close to 100 pre-proposals were received for consideration,
    with 76 invited to compete with a full proposal. An upper limit of
    $500,000 has been established for any one grant, to give a reasonable
    number of grantees an opportunity to participate. Ordinarily grants
    would generally be awarded for much higher amounts to support the
    research required. Larger multi-institutional studies had to limit what
    they were proposing.
        More funding would allow for a broader scope of work and multi-
    institutional collaboration. The requests from these 76 proposals for
    year one of the grants totaled over $20 million and several grants
    requested funding for multiple years. USAISR expects to receive a much
    higher number of pre-proposals in subsequent years, when the timeline
    for submission will be longer, with more lead time in notification.
        With orthopaedic trauma being the most common form of trauma seen
    in military conflicts, it is crucial that there be funding dedicated
    specifically to the advancement of orthopaedic trauma research. The
    AAOS has worked closely with the top military orthopaedic surgeons, at
    world-class facilities such as the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical
    Research, Brooke Army Medical Center, and Walter Reed Army Medical
    Center to identify the gaps in orthopaedic trauma research and care and
    the needs are overwhelming. Especially considering military trauma is
    not a research focus for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

                                   CONCLUSION

        I hope that I have given you a well-rounded perspective on the
    extent of what orthopaedic trauma military surgeons are seeing and a
    glimpse into the current and future research for such trauma. Military
    trauma research currently being carried out at military facilities,
    such as WRAMC and the USAISR, and at civilian medical facilities, is
    vital to the health of our soldiers and to the Armed Forces' objective
    to return injured soldiers to full function in hopes that they can
    continue to be contributing soldiers and active members of society.
        Mr. Chairman, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, as well
    as the entire orthopaedic community, stands ready to work with this
    subcommittee to identify and prioritize research opportunities for the
    advancement of orthopaedic trauma care. Military and civilian
    orthopaedic surgeons and researchers are committed to advancing
    orthopaedic trauma research that will benefit the unfortunately high
    number of soldiers afflicted with such trauma and return them to full
    function. It is imperative that the Federal Government, when
    establishing its defense health research priorities in the fiscal year
    2007 Defense Appropriations bill, ensure that orthopedic trauma
    research is a top priority.
        I urge you to continue the Orthopaedic Trauma Research Program at a
    funding level of $25 million. While Congress funds an extensive array
    of medical research through the Department of Defense, with over half
    of military trauma being orthopaedic-related, no other type of medical
    research would better benefit our men and women serving in the war on
    terror and in future conflicts. Especially as this program is only in
    its infancy stage, continuity is critical to its success.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness, Dr. Robert Recker,
    National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases.
    Dr. Recker.

    STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT RECKER, M.D., DIRECTOR,
                OSTEOPOROSIS RESEARCH CENTER, CREIGHTON
                UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
                COALITION FOR OSTEOPOROSIS AND RELATED BONE
                DISEASES
        Dr. Recker. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
    am Dr. Robert Recker, Director of the Osteoporosis Research
    Center at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and I am
    testifying on behalf of the National Coalition for Osteoporosis
    and Related Bone Diseases, the Bone Coalition.
        The Bone Coalition is committed to research and education
    that reduces the impact of bone diseases. It includes the
    American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the National
    Osteoporosis Foundation, the Osteogenesis Imperfecta
    Foundation, and the Paget Foundation. We appreciate this
    opportunity to discuss funding of the Bone Health and Military
    Medical Readiness Research Program within the Department of
    Defense.
        The purpose of this program is to improve the bone health
    of our military personnel. Current efforts focus on eliminating
    stress fractures during training and deployment. Stress
    fractures occur in military recruits and trainees who undergo
    rigorous physical conditioning in a brief period of time.
    Increases in military recruitment have led to an upsurge in
    stress fracture cases. In soldiers on lengthy deployments,
    medical dispensaries report stress fractures in unprecedented
    numbers.
        Among new recruits, approximately 40 percent of men and 60
    percent of women with stress fracture do not complete basic
    training. Those who do return to duty must first undergo a
    rehabilitation period of 80 to 120 days. Stress fractures are a
    significant health and financial burden, increasing training
    time, program costs, and time to military readiness.
        It is critical that we continue to build on recent findings
    that have led to the following advances: one, an Army-wide
    physical training program with reduced running and increased
    resistance training, without compromising physical fitness.
    Studies of this new program continue.
        Modifications in the physical fitness program for female
    Marine Corps recruits in training, without compromising
    physical fitness.
        Animal studies showing that short-term exercise training
    improves material and structural properties of bone, improving
    fatigue resistance by 80-fold. Studies are underway in humans.
        Discovery that a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication
    slows stress fracture healing in animals. A study of these
    medications in humans is nearing completion.
        To eliminate stress fracture in basic training, to optimize
    physical training and nutrition standards, and to develop
    practical methods to predict impending injury; expanded
    research is needed that will one, utilize genetic, lifestyle,
    and other risk factors, to establish a risk factor profile that
    identifies individuals at high risk for stress fracture; expand
    on pulmonary findings of gender differences in their response
    of bone to physical training; study the relationship between
    exercise training regimen: timing, type, volume of training,
    and onset of micro damage in bone; examine the impact of load
    bearing and muscle fatigue on bone during prolonged standing
    and marching; and finally, to test promising interventions that
    might improve bone quality prior to entry into basic training.
        These studies and other DOD studies in progress will
    determine cost effective approaches to diagnose, prevent, and
    treat stress fractures, and accelerate return to duty.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, stress
    fractures continue to be a critical obstacle to military
    readiness and deployment. It is imperative that the Department
    of Defense build on recent findings, and maintain an aggressive
    and sustained bone health and military medical readiness
    program. The National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related
    Bone Diseases urges you to fund this program at a level of $5
    million in fiscal year 2007. We appreciate the opportunity to
    express our concerns.
        Senator Inouye. Doctor, we assure you we will do our utmost
    on this one.
        Dr. Recker. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Robert Recker

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee: I am Robert Recker,
    M.D., Director of the Osteoporosis Research Center at Creighton
    University in Omaha, Nebraska and I am testifying on behalf of the
    National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases (the Bone
    Coalition).
        The Bone Coalition is committed to reducing the impact of bone
    diseases through expanded basic, clinical, epidemiological and
    behavioral research leading to improvement in patient care. The
    Coalition participants are leading national bone disease
    organizations--the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the
    National Osteoporosis Foundation, the Osteogenesis Imperfecta
    Foundation, and the Paget Foundation for Paget's Disease of Bone and
    Related Disorders.
        We appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you the necessity
    for continued funding of the Bone Health and Military Medical Readiness
    Program within the Department of Defense.
        The purpose of this small, but important, program is to improve the
    bone health of our military men and women. An effort currently underway
    is targeting the elimination of stress fractures that occur during
    training and deployment. Stress fracture has been a principal concern
    to military readiness and a major cause of low soldier retention during
    basic training and thereafter.
        Stress fractures are usually reported in young military recruits
    and trainees who are subjected to rigorous physical conditioning over a
    relatively short period of time. According to the Bone Health and
    Military Medical Readiness program, recent increases in military
    recruitment have led to an upsurge in the number of reported stress
    fracture cases. An additional concern is the increased number of
    documented stress fractures over the last 2 years in soldiers who have
    recently returned from lengthy deployments. Reports from troop medical
    clinics indicate that these soldiers are sustaining stress fractures in
    unprecedented numbers.
        Among new recruits, approximately 40 percent of men and 60 percent
    of women who sustain a stress fracture do not complete basic training.
    For soldiers who are able to return to duty, a rehabilitation period of
    80-120 days is necessary prior to resumption of training. The high
    incidence of stress fractures has a marked impact on the health of
    recruits and imposes a significant financial burden on the U.S. Armed
    Forces by increasing the length of training time, program costs and
    time to military readiness.
        It is critical that we continue to build on the promising results
    emanating from this research program. Recent findings have led to:
      --Recommendations to implement a new Army-wide physical training
            program that emphasizes reduced running and increased
            resistance training without compromising physical fitness at
            the end of basic training. Studies are underway to determine
            the efficacy of this new program in reducing stress fracture
            and other overuse injuries in soldiers.
      --Modifications in the physical fitness conditioning programs for
            female Marine Corps recruits in training, again without
            compromising physical fitness of trainees.
      --Animal studies revealing that short-term exercise training improves
            both material and structural properties of bone that increase
            fatigue resistance by 80-fold. Studies are ongoing to determine
            if similar exercise programs lead to improved bone strength in
            humans.
      --Research demonstrating that the use of a non-steroidal anti-
            inflammatory medication slows stress fracture healing in rats.
            A study to assess the effect of these commonly used medications
            on bone in humans is nearing completion.
        To eliminate stress fracture in basic training in the military; to
    optimize physical training and nutrition standards for healthy young
    men and women; and to develop practical methods and markers to predict
    impending injury, expanded investigations are needed that will:
      --Utilize genetic, lifestyle, and other risk factors to establish a
            risk factor profile that identifies individuals at high risk
            for stress fracture injury.
      --Expand on preliminary findings that revealed gender differences in
            the response of bone to physical training.
      --Study the relationship between exercise training regimen (timing,
            type and volume of training) and onset of microdamage in bone.
      --Examine the impact of load bearing and/or muscle fatigue on bone
            strain during prolonged standing and marching activities.
      --Test promising interventions that might improve bone quality prior
            to entry into basic training.
        These studies, along with other DOD studies in progress, will
    determine the most cost effective approach to diagnosis and treatment
    of stress fracture, and accelerate return to duty. An improved
    understanding of these injuries will also form the basis of potential
    preventive measures.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, stress fractures
    continue to be a critical obstacle to military readiness and time to
    deployment. Therefore, it is imperative that the Department of Defense
    build on recent findings and maintain an aggressive and sustained Bone
    Health and Military Medical Readiness program. The National Coalition
    for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases urges you to fund this
    program at a level of $5 million in fiscal year 2007.
        We appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is the President of the
    National Breast Cancer Coalition, Fran Visco. Ms. Visco.

    STATEMENT OF FRAN VISCO, J.D., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
                BREAST CANCER COALITION
        Ms. Visco. Thank you, Senator Inouye, and I want to thank
    you for your continued leadership and support for the DOD peer-
    reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program, and also of course
    thank Chairman Stevens and the other members of the
    subcommittee.
        As you know, this program has been an enormous success. And
    I am here today as a wife, a mother, and as the head of the
    National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC). When I was 39 years
    old, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. My son was 14 months
    old. I'm fortunate, because after surgery, a very toxic
    treatment with lifelong side effects, I am still here today to
    testify to you about this extraordinary program, and on behalf
    of NBCC, a coalition of more than 600 member organizations, and
    tens of thousands of individuals.
        The DOD peer-reviewed Breast Cancer Program is incredibly
    efficient. More than 90 percent of the funds appropriated fund
    research. It is unbelievably effective. It fills gaps in
    traditional funding mechanisms and supports new ideas. And our
    collaboration among the advocacy community, the worldwide
    scientific committee, and the United States Army, has created
    new models for biomedical research and for decisionmaking, that
    have been copied by other Army programs, by other institutions,
    agencies, even States and other countries.
        This program has had an independent review on three
    separate occasions. And those reviews have stressed the unique
    role the program plays, that it is not duplicative, and has
    given incredibly high praise for the substance of the program.
    It is transparent. It is accountable to the public. It is--
    every 2 years we have an Era of Hope meeting where everything
    that has been funded with taxpayer dollars is reported to the
    public.
        We are proud to be partners with the Army in this program.
    The women across the country, their families, their friends,
    their supporters, look to this program because this is where we
    are saving lives of breast cancer. So I want to again thank you
    so very much for your continued support, and I look forward to
    continuing our collaboration and partnership.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Ms. Visco. As you
    know, we will do our best.
        Ms. Visco. Yes, I know. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                        Prepared Statement of Fran Visco

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Defense, for the opportunity to talk to you about a
    program that has made a significant difference in the lives of women
    and their families. You and your committee have shown great
    determination and leadership in searching for answers by funding the
    Department of Defense (DOD) Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research
    Program (BCRP) at a level that has brought us closer to eradicating
    this disease. Chairman Stevens and ranking member Inouye, we have
    appreciated your support of this program in the past. I am hopeful that
    you and your committee will continue that determination and leadership.
        I am Fran Visco, a breast cancer survivor, a wife and mother, a
    lawyer, and President of the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC).
    On behalf of NBCC, and the more than 3 million women living with breast
    cancer, I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
    As you know, the National Breast Cancer Coalition is a grassroots
    advocacy organization made up of hundreds of organizations and tens of
    thousands of individuals and has been working since 1991 toward the
    eradication of breast cancer through advocacy and action. NBCC supports
    increased funding for breast cancer research, increased access to
    quality health care for all women, and increased influence of breast
    cancer activists at every table where decisions regarding breast cancer
    are made. That is why this program is so important in the fight against
    this disease.
        Much of the progress toward ending breast cancer has been made
    possible by the Appropriations Committee's investment in breast cancer
    research through the DOD BCRP. This program has launched new models of
    biomedical research that have benefited other agencies and both public
    and private institutions. It has changed for the better the way
    research is performed and has been replicated by programs focused on
    other diseases, by other countries and individual States. To support
    this unprecedented progress moving forward, we ask that you support a
    separate, $150 million appropriation for fiscal year 2007. In order to
    continue the success of this program, you must ensure that it maintains
    its integrity and separate identity, in addition to the requested level
    of funding. This is important not just for breast cancer, but also for
    all biomedical research that has benefited from this incredible
    government program. In addition, as an Institute of Medicine (IOM)
    report concluded in 2004, there continues to be excellent science that
    goes unfunded, but for this program. It is only through a separate
    appropriation that this program is able to continue to focus on breast
    cancer yet impact all other research, rapidly respond to changes and
    new discoveries in the field and fill the gaps created by traditional
    funding mechanisms.
        Despite the enormous successes and advancements in breast cancer
    research made through funding from the DOD BCRP, we still do not know
    what causes breast cancer, how to prevent it, or how to cure it. It is
    critical that innovative research through this unique program continues
    so that we can move forward toward eradicating this disease.

               OVERVIEW OF THE DOD BREAST CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM

        The DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has
    established itself as model medical research program, respected
    throughout the cancer and broader medical community for its innovative
    and accountable approach. The groundbreaking research performed through
    the program has the potential to benefit not just breast cancer, but
    all cancers, as well as other diseases. Biomedical research is being
    transformed by the BCRP's success.
        This program is both innovative and incredibly streamlined. It
    continues to be overseen by a group of distinguished scientists and
    activists, as recommended by the IOM. Because there is little
    bureaucracy, the program is able to respond quickly to what is
    currently happening in the scientific community. Because of its
    specific focus on breast cancer, it is able to rapidly support
    innovative proposals that reflect the most recent discoveries in the
    field. It is responsive, not just to the scientific community, but also
    to the public.
        Since its inception, this program has matured from an isolated
    research program to a broad-reaching influential voice forging new and
    innovative directions for breast cancer research and science. The
    flexibility of the program has allowed the Army to administer this
    groundbreaking research effort with unparalleled efficiency and
    effectiveness.
        In addition, an integral part of this program has been the
    inclusion of consumer advocates at every level. As a result, the
    program has created an unprecedented working relationship between the
    public, scientists and the military, and ultimately has led to new
    avenues of research in breast cancer. Since 1992, over 400 breast
    cancer survivors have served on the BCRP review panels. Their vital
    role in the success of the BCRP has led to consumer inclusion in other
    biomedical research programs at DOD. This program now serves as an
    international model.
        It is important to note that the DOD Integration Panel that designs
    this program has a plan of how best to spend the funds appropriated.
    This plan is based on the state of the science--both what scientists
    know now and the gaps in our knowledge--as well as the needs of the
    public. This plan coincides with our philosophy that we do not want to
    restrict scientific freedom, creativity or innovation. While we
    carefully allocate these resources, we do not want to predetermine the
    specific research areas to be addressed.

                          UNIQUE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

        Developments in the past few years have begun to offer breast
    cancer researchers fascinating insights into the science of breast
    cancer and have brought into sharp focus the areas of research that
    hold promise and will build on the knowledge and investment we have
    made. The Innovative Developmental and Exploratory Awards (IDEA) grants
    of the DOD program have been critical in the effort to respond to new
    discoveries and to encourage and support innovative, risk-taking
    research. The IDEA grants have been instrumental in the development of
    promising breast cancer research. These grants have allowed scientists
    to explore beyond the realm of traditional research and have unleashed
    incredible new ideas and concepts. IDEA grants are uniquely designed to
    dramatically advance our knowledge in areas that offer the greatest
    potential.
        IDEA grants are precisely the type of grants that rarely receive
    funding through more traditional programs such as the National
    Institutes of Health, and private research programs. Therefore, they
    complement, and do not duplicate, other federal funding programs. This
    is true of other DOD award mechanisms as well.
        For example, the Innovator awards are structured to invest in world
    renowned, outstanding individuals, rather than projects, from any field
    of study by providing funding and freedom to pursue highly creative,
    potentially breakthrough research that could ultimately accelerate the
    eradication of breast cancer. The Era of Hope Scholar is intended to
    support the formation of the next generation of leaders in breast
    cancer research, by identifying the best and brightest independent
    scientists early in their careers and giving them the necessary
    resources to pursue a highly innovative vision toward ending breast
    cancer.
        Also, Historically Black Colleges and Minority Universities/
    Minority Institutions Partnership Awards are intended to provide
    assistance at an institutional level. The major goal of this award is
    to support collaboration between multiple investigators at an applicant
    Minority Institution and a collaborating institution with an
    established program in breast cancer research, for the purpose of
    creating an environment that would foster breast cancer research, and
    in which Minority Institution faculty would receive training toward
    establishing successful breast cancer research programs.
        These are just a few examples of innovative approaches at the DOD
    BCRP that are filling gaps in breast cancer research. It is vital that
    these grants are able to continue to support interest in breast cancer
    research--$150 million for peer-reviewed research will help sustain the
    program's momentum.
        The DOD BCRP also focuses on moving research from the bench to the
    bedside. A major feature of the awards offered by the BCRP is that they
    are designed to fill niches that are not offered by other agencies. The
    BCRP considers translational research to be the application of well-
    founded laboratory or other pre-clinical insight into a clinical trial.
    To enhance this critical area of research, several research
    opportunities have been offered. Clinical Translational Research awards
    have been awarded for investigator-initiated projects that involve a
    clinical trial within the lifetime of the award. The BCRP expanded its
    emphasis on translational research by offering five different types of
    awards that support work at the critical juncture between laboratory
    research and bedside applications.
        The Centers of Excellence awards mechanism brings together the
    world's most highly qualified individuals and institutions to address a
    major overarching question in breast cancer research that could make a
    major contribution towards the eradication of breast cancer. These
    centers put to work the expertise of basic, epidemiology and clinical
    researchers, as well as consumer advocates to focus on a major question
    in breast cancer research. Many of these centers are working on
    questions that will translate into direct clinical applications.

                            SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS

        The BCRP research portfolio is comprised of many different types of
    projects, including support for innovative ideas, infrastructure
    building to facilitate clinical trials, and training breast cancer
    researchers.
        A groundbreaking outcome of research funded by the BCRP was the
    development of Herceptin, a drug that prolongs the lives of women with
    a particularly aggressive type of advanced breast cancer; and has been
    shown in recent studies to decrease relapses in women with this type of
    breast cancer, which constitute about 25 percent of those diagnosed.
    This drug could not have been developed without first researching and
    understanding the gene known as HER-2/neu, which is involved in the
    progression of some breast cancers. Researchers found that over-
    expression of HER-2/neu in breast cancer cells results in very
    aggressive biologic behavior. Most importantly, the same researchers
    demonstrated that an antibody directed against HER-2/neu could slow the
    growth of the cancer cells that over-expressed the gene. This research,
    which led to the development of the drug Herceptin, was made possible
    in part by a DOD BCRP-funded infrastructure grant. Other researchers
    funded by the BCRP are currently working to identify similar kinds of
    genes that are involved in the initiation and progression of cancer.
    They hope to develop new drugs like Herceptin that can fight the growth
    of breast cancer cells.
        Another example of success from the program is a study of sentinel
    lymph nodes (SLNs). This study confirmed that SLNs are indicators of
    metastatic progression of disease. The resulting knowledge from this
    study and others has lead to a standard of care that includes lymph
    node biopsies. If the first lymph node is negative for cancer cells,
    then it is unnecessary to remove all the lymph nodes. This helps
    prevent lymphodema, which can be painful and have lasting
    complications.
        Those are just two example of success stories come out of the DOD
    BCRP. In addition, there are still other studies in earlier stages of
    research coming out of the program that could lead to important
    breakthroughs in our knowledge of the disease, as well as how to treat
    it. For example, some studies are using advances in gene expression
    profiling technologies to allow them to identify breast cancer
    ``types''. Researchers have found that there are different kinds of
    breast cancer, each responding differently to different treatments. The
    recognition that breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease will allow
    for more targeted therapies and better selection of patient subgroups
    for clinical trials.
        Finally, some studies are using nanotechnology to identify the
    location and size of a cancerous tumor. In addition, that same
    technology is being studied to determine whether it is possible to
    deliver treatment directly to the tumor and destroying it, but leaving
    other, non-cancerous tissue in tact.

                            FEDERAL MONEY WELL SPENT

        The DOD BCRP is as efficient as it is innovative. In fact, 90
    percent of funds go directly to research grants. The flexibility of the
    program allows the Army to administer it in such a way as to maximize
    its limited resources. The program is able to quickly respond to
    current scientific advances, and fulfills an important niche by
    focusing on research that is traditionally under funded. This was
    confirmed and reiterated in an IOM report released in 2004. It is
    responsive to the scientific community and to the public. This is
    evidenced by the inclusion of consumer advocates at both the peer and
    programmatic review levels. The consumer perspective helps the
    scientists understand how the research will affect the community, and
    allows for funding decisions based on the concerns and needs of
    patients and the medical community.
        Since 1992, the BCRP has been responsible for managing $1.81
    billion in appropriations. From its inception through fiscal year 2004,
    4,293 awards at over 420 institutions throughout the United States and
    the District of Columbia have been awarded. Approximately 150 awards
    will be granted for fiscal year 2005. The areas of focus of the DOD
    BCRP span a broad spectrum and include basic, clinical, behavioral,
    epidemiology, and alternative therapy studies, to name a few. The BCRP
    benefits women and their families by maximizing resources and filling
    in the gaps in breast cancer research. Scientific achievements that are
    the direct result of the DOD BCRP grants are undoubtedly moving us
    closer to eradicating breast cancer.
        The outcomes of the BCRP-funded research can be gauged, in part, by
    the number of publications, abstracts/presentations, and patents/
    licensures reported by awardees. To date, there have been more than
    9,500 publications in scientific journals, more than 9,600 abstracts
    and more than 300 patents/licensure applications. The Federal
    Government can truly be proud of its investment in the DOD BCRP.

                   INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS OF PROGRAM SUCCESS

        The National Breast Cancer Coalition has been the driving force
    behind this program for many years. The success of the DOD Peer-
    Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has been illustrated by several
    unique assessments of the program. The IOM, which originally
    recommended the structure for the program, independently re-examined
    the program in a report published in 1997. They published another
    report on the program in 2004. Their findings overwhelmingly encouraged
    the continuation of the program and offered guidance for program
    implementation improvements.
        The 1997 IOM review of the DOD Peer-Review Breast Cancer Research
    Program commended the program and stated that, ``the program fills a
    unique niche among public and private funding sources for cancer
    research. It is not duplicative of other programs and is a promising
    vehicle for forging new ideas and scientific breakthroughs in the
    Nation's fight against breast cancer.'' The IOM report recommended
    continuing the program and established a solid direction for the next
    phase of the program. The 2004 report reiterated these same statements
    and indicated that is important for the program to continue. It is
    imperative that Congress recognizes the independent evaluations of the
    DOD Breast Cancer Research Program, as well as reiterates its own
    commitment to the program by appropriating the funding needed to ensure
    its success.
        The DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program not only
    provides a funding mechanism for high-risk, high-return research, but
    also reports the results of this research to the American people at a
    biennial public meeting called the Era of Hope. The 1997 meeting was
    the first time a federally funded program reported back to the public
    in detail not only on the funds used, but also on the research
    undertaken, the knowledge gained from that research and future
    directions to be pursued. The transparency of the BCRP allows
    scientists, consumers and the American public to see the exceptional
    progress made in breast cancer research.
        At the 2005 Era of Hope meeting, all BCRP award recipients from the
    past 2 years were invited to report their research findings, and many
    awardees from previous years were asked to present advancements in
    their research. Themes for the 2005 meeting included: Understanding
    Risk--A Different Perspective; Understanding Who Needs Intervention and
    Understanding Treatments--Effectively Treating Primary and Metastatic
    Disease. Researchers presented their research on many important topics
    ranging from the development of new techniques for detecting breast
    cancer to identifying and destroying progenitor breast cancer cells to
    determining ways to stop tumor growth by preventing angiogenesis to
    applying new models for developing and implementing communications
    strategies in order to enhance decision making and improve quality of
    life for breast cancer patients.
        The DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has attracted
    scientists across a broad spectrum of disciplines, launched new
    mechanisms for research and has continued to facilitate new thinking in
    breast cancer research and research in general. A report on all
    research that has been funded through the DOD BCRP is available to the
    public. Individuals can go to the Department of Defense website and
    look at the abstracts for each proposal at http://cdmrp.army.mil/
    bcrp/.

               COMMITMENT OF THE NATIONAL BREAST CANCER COALITION

        The National Breast Cancer Coalition is strongly committed to the
    DOD program in every aspect, as we truly believe it is one of our best
    chances for finding cures and preventions for breast cancer. The
    coalition and its members are dedicated to working with you to ensure
    the continuation of funding for this program at a level that allows
    this research to forge ahead.
        Over the years, our members have showed their continuing support
    for this program through petition campaigns, collecting more than 2.6
    million signatures, and through their advocacy on an almost daily basis
    through the country asking for support of the DOD BCRP.
        As you know, there are 3 million women living with breast cancer in
    this country today. This year more than 40,000 will die of the disease
    and nearly 220,000 will be diagnosed. We still do not know how to
    prevent breast cancer, how to diagnose it truly early or how to cure
    it. While the mortality rate seems to be decreasing, it is not by much
    and it is not for all groups of women. The incidence of breast cancer
    continues to rise. It is an incredibly complex disease. We simply
    cannot afford to walk away from these facts, we cannot go back to the
    traditional, tried and not so true ways of dealing with breast cancer.
    We must, we simply must, continue the innovative, rapid, hopeful
    approach that is the DOD BCRP.
        Just a few weeks ago, many of the women and family members who
    supported the campaign to gather the 2.6 million signatures came to
    NBCCF's Annual Advocacy Training Conference here in Washington, D.C.
    More than 600 breast cancer activists from across the country,
    representing groups in their communities and speaking on behalf of tens
    of thousands of others, joined us in continuing to mobilize our efforts
    to end breast cancer. The overwhelming interest in, and dedication to
    eradicate this disease continues to be evident as people not only are
    signing petitions, but were willing to come to Washington, D.C. from
    across the country to tell their Members of Congress about the vital
    importance of continuing the DOD BCRP.
        Since the very beginning of this program in 1992, Congress has
    stood with us in support of this important investment in the fight
    against breast cancer. In the years since, Mr. Chairman, you and this
    entire committee have been leaders in the effort to continue this
    innovative investment in breast cancer research.
        NBCC asks you, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to
    recognize the importance of what you have initiated. You have set in
    motion an innovative and highly efficient approach to fighting the
    breast cancer epidemic. What you must do now is support this effort by
    funding the program at $150 million and maintaining its integrity. This
    is research that will help us win this very real and devastating war
    against a cruel enemy.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and for giving hope
    to the 3 million women in the United States living with breast cancer.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Rear Admiral Casey
    Coane, the United States Navy Executive Director of the Naval
    Reserve Association. Admiral.

    STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL CASEY COANE, UNITED STATES
                NAVY (RETIRED), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAVAL
                RESERVE ASSOCIATION
        Admiral Coane. Senator Inouye, on behalf of the 22,000
    members of the Naval Reserve Association and the 70,000 serving
    Navy reservists, I want to thank you and the entire
    subcommittee for your continued unwavering support of our Navy,
    Navy Reserve, Navy veterans, and their families. We are
    grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony, and for your
    efforts in this hearing.
        Your willingness to address and correct issues facing
    Reservists affirms their value to the defense of our great
    Nation. Your willingness to look at issues related to the use
    of the Reserve on the basis of national security and homeland
    defense is very important.
        In the interest of time, I will depart from our written
    testimony and get straight to the point. I will raise two broad
    issues, and then get to Navy Reserve equipment.
        First, we see a trend developing whereby the Active
    components are taking Guard and Reserve equipment from those
    units in order to replace shortfalls on the active ledger. The
    long war is using up mechanized equipment and flying years off
    of our aircraft of all types. We do not see a plan within DOD
    for the replacement of this equipment. The subcommittee is
    certainly aware of that within Navy, all Navy Reserve squadrons
    are being decommissioned--that is Navy Reserve patrol
    squadrons--are being decommissioned, and their aircraft have
    already been transferred to the Active squadron. The same thing
    is happening now with our Navy Reserve FA-18 squadrons,
    including VFA-201 in Dallas, which was mobilized and carried
    out some of the very first strikes as Operation Iraqi Freedom
    began. Navy Reserve combat support helicopter squadrons HCS-4
    and -5 have had detachments in Baghdad for over 3 years
    straight. They are set to merge with three other Reserve
    squadrons, with the result being that what was once five will
    become three, with three squadrons' worth of aircraft.
        All this is being accomplished under the banner of
    integration. We believe it is a fiscal decision, not a national
    readiness decision. Second, Guardsmen and Reservists need
    equipment on which to train. It is what motivates them and
    brings them to the table. It is what allows our country to
    maintain the reservoir of combat skill sets that enable the VFA
    201 to respond to the call, and out perform every other
    squadron in its air wing.
        History tells us that when that squadron decommissions, the
    vast majority of its reservists will leave the service, those
    hard-earned combat skills lost to the country forever. Now, the
    Navy Reserve does have an unfunded list this year. Greater Navy
    chose not to put any of those items on its unfunded list. The
    Navy had begun to buy C-40 aircraft to replace its rapidly
    aging DC-9's. Boeing has made a very attractive accelerated
    purchase offer to the Navy, which would save the taxpayers
    millions of dollars.
        All Navy airlift is in the Reserve component. And if the C-
    9s are not replaced, the Navy will lose the capability that it
    has argued for years that it must have. We particularly urge
    the subcommittee to fund these aircraft, at least two of them,
    this year.
        For years, the Navy Reserve has been the Navy leader in
    port security in the brown water Navy. The Reserve tactical
    vehicles and communications gear is aging and needs replacement
    now. The Navy has just stood up its new Riverine Squadron, and
    while the second squadron is to be a Reserve squadron, the
    Reserve piece is not in the program objective memorandum (POM).
    We urge the subcommittee to fund this squadron.
        We also ask the subcommittee to address the other items on
    the Navy unfunded list, and ensure that reservists continue to
    have equipment on which to train.
        We thank you for your time.
        Senator Inouye. Admiral, I thank you very much, and I'm
    certain the chairman joins me. We will do our very best, sir.
        Admiral Coane. Thank you, sir.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Casey Coane

                          THE NAVY RESERVE ASSOCIATION

        Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and distinguished Members of the
    subcommittee: The Naval Reserve Association thanks you and the entire
    subcommittee for your continued, unwavering support of our Navy
    Reserve, Navy Active Duty, retired members, and veterans of the
    uniformed services, to include their families and survivors.
        On behalf of our 22,000 members, and in advocacy for the 72,000
    active Naval Reservists and the interest of all Guard and Reserve
    personnel, we are grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony, and
    for your efforts in this hearing. Your willingness to address and
    correct issues facing Reservists affirms their value to the defense of
    our great Nation. Your willingness to look at issues related to the use
    of the Reserve on the basis of national security sets the Legislative
    Branch apart from the Executive Branch which seemingly develops its
    positions on the basis of cost.
        We hope that many of these equipment issues will be addressed by
    the Commission on the Guard and Reserve. We look forward to that body
    giving Congress and the administration a holistic view of the myriad
    issues facing today's Guard and Reserve but, as you know, they have
    just begun their review.

                             NAVY RESERVE EQUIPMENT

        That said, there are equipment issues that need to be addressed by
    this committee and this Congress, now. As you know, DOD and the
    services have not provided all necessary hardware for the Guard and
    Reserve forces throughout recent history. The Senate has led the way in
    providing the right equipment at the right time for our Guard and
    Reserve forces, and especially for the Navy Reserve force.
        It is imperative that at this time you recognize that in
    transforming and rebalancing the Navy Reserve, Navy has made a decision
    to disestablish Navy Reserve hardware units. We believe this is based
    solely on budgetary reasons, since no vision of the Navy Reserve exists
    for review.
        To put this in perspective, in 2003 the Chief of Naval Reserve
    testified before this committee that he needed a variety of additions
    and upgrades to Reserve equipment. In 2004 a different chief testified
    before this committee and while he thanked the committee for the 2004
    National Guard and Reserve equipment appropriation; he made no further
    request for equipment or upgrades to equipment. He did tout the
    extraordinary performance of Strike Fighter Squadron 201 which had been
    mobilized aboard Theodore Roosevelt and Helicopter Combat Support
    Squadrons 4 and 5 for their deployments to Iraq.
        These were the first Navy Reserve squadron fighter and helicopter
    squadron call-ups since Korea and, as was testified to by their Chief
    of Navy Reserve, they performed superbly--better than other air wing
    squadrons in the case of VFA-201. HCS-4 and 5 have no Active Component
    counterparts but performed equally well. These deployments validated
    the wisdom of having assets in reserve that the country could call
    upon. Today those same squadrons are scheduled to be decommissioned!
        Within the last 5 years, Navy, has disestablished--60 percent of
    the Navy Air Reserve force, with most of the remaining force on the
    books to disestablish. 33 percent of the Navy Surface Reserve force has
    been lost. This has occurred in a time of increased usage of Reservists
    by the Navy. Some of these units are described as excess, yet they have
    proven the wisdom of having them available.
        While it may be understandable that Navy has the right to shape the
    force, it seems to me that for the tax payers--the Navy Reserve
    hardware units are a fantastic buy for the tax payer's dollar. They
    cost one-third less, and provide surge capabilities when called. VFA-
    201 is serving as the Navy's surge ready fighter/attack squadron at
    this time. And, they do respond when called. VFA-201 (Texas), HSC 4-5
    (California, Virginia), Naval Coastal Warfare (nationwide), Seabees
    (nationwide), ELF (nationwide), and VR (nationwide)--are just some
    examples of Naval Reservist doing what the country needs and wants--
    when we need and want them! Yet--Navy is well on the way to
    disestablishing all air assets for budgetary reasons. We believe you
    must provide for these capabilities, and maintain these capabilities
    that are being utilized, are needed, and do respond to our national
    security requirements and to our national homeland defense
    requirements.
        The recent QDR indicates a continued requirement for our Armed
    Forces to be engaged worldwide. To meet the national security strategy,
    the homeland security strategy and to ensure that our country meets the
    emerging threats of the long war and global war on terrorism it is
    evident that we will need the Navy Reserve well into the 21st Century
    to meet world wide threats. We are activating these citizen sailors
    today for OIF, OEF, and worldwide GWOT operations. I hasten to add that
    when concerns are raised by our association we are often accused of
    living in the past; of not understanding the newly-integrated Navy
    Reserve mission. It is not the past that concerns us but the
    unpredictability of the future and future military requirements.
        The Senate has frequently reminded DOD that they do not plan well
    for the next war. That is why we have maintained assets and skills in a
    Reserve force--because we can't predict accurately. The Navy now seems
    bent on a Reserve force that functions only as a day to day operational
    manpower pool. We have strong reservations that going forward this will
    not provide surge capability nor will it result in the retention of
    skill sets that are maintained today because Reservists have their own
    equipment on which to train.
        Within the units that the Navy says it will retain, there are
    significant Navy Reserve equipment shortages that need your attention.
    The following items are both necessary and affordable for the country,
    in this time of increased utilization and requirements as forecast by
    the QDR.
        C-40A.--Navy Reserve transport squadrons provide 100 percent of the
    Navy's intra theater logistic requirements. The C-40 will replace aging
    and expensive C-9B aircraft. Boeing has made significant accelerated
    purchase offers to the Navy at great savings to the taxpayer. We urge
    you to fund these aircraft, and to provide resources for two (2) C-40s
    this year.
        Naval Coastal Warfare Equipment.--The Navy Reserve has been the
    leader in port security and the brown-water Navy. These units have
    existed in the Navy Reserve for sometime. Their equipment is ageing and
    needs replacement. They supplied initial response during 9/11, and have
    responded to our Nations call for OIF and OEF. As the Active component
    moves into addressing the brown water Navy requirements--we have to
    keep the Navy Reserve fully equipped with reliable tactical vehicles,
    communications equipment, and combat support equipment.
        Naval Expeditionary Equipment.--The Navy Reserve expeditionary
    forces are actively and constantly engaged in OIF and OEF. They are an
    integral part of the Defense Department's homeland defense strategy.
    Tactical vehicles and small arms simulators are critically needed to
    make sure Navy Reservist are effectively and efficiently trained for
    deployments.
        The Naval Reserve Association asks that you provide committee
    language to cease disestablishment of Navy Reserve hardware units,
    maintain and fund hardware units in the Navy Reserve before the
    capabilities are cut, and that you fund the three critical equipment
    shortages listed.
      other critical navy reserve, guard and reserve programs requirements
    End Strength
        The NRA would like to also put a freeze on reductions to the Guard
    and Reserve manning levels. With the Commission on the Guard and
    Reserve now active, it makes sense to put a moratorium on changes to
    end strength until after they report back to Congress with
    recommendations. NRA urges this subcommittee to fund end strength for
    Navy Reserve to last year's levels.
    Survivor Benefits Pan (SBP) and Survivor Improvement
        The Naval Reserve Association thanks this subcommittee for your
    funding of improvements in the myriad of survivor programs. However,
    there are still two remaining issues to deal with to make SBP the
    program Congress always intended it to be:
      --Ending the SBP/DIC offset and
      --Moving up the effective date for paid up SBP to October 1, 2006.
        SBP is a purchased annuity. It is an earned employee benefit. It is
    a retirement plan for the surviving spouse. Dependency Indemnification
    Compensation's (DIC) is an indemnity program to compensate a family for
    the loss of a loved one due to his or her military service. They are
    different programs created to fill different purposes and needs.
        SBP/DIC Offset affects several groups.
      --The first is the family of a retired member of the uniformed
            services. At this time the SBP annuity he or she has paid for
            is offset dollar for dollar for the DIC survivor benefits paid
            through the VA. This puts a disabled retiree in an unfortunate
            position. If death is service connected then the survivor
            looses dollar for dollar for what the DIC pays.
      --A second group affected by this dollar for dollar offset is made up
            of families whose servicemember died on Active Duty. Recently
            Congress created Active Duty SBP. These servicemembers never
            had the chance to pay into the SBP program. But clearly
            Congress intended to give these families a benefit. With the
            present off-set in place the vast majority of families receive
            no benefit from this new program, because the vast number of
            our losses are young men or women in the lower paying ranks.
            SBP is completely offset by DIC payments.
      --Other affected families are servicemembers who have already served
            a substantial time in the military. Their surviving spouse is
            left in a worse financial position that a younger widow. The
            older widow's will normally not be receiving benefits for her
            children from either Social Security or the VA and will
            normally have more substantial financial obligations. This
            spouse is very dependent on the SBP and DIC payments and should
            be able to receive both.
        Thirty Year Paid Up SBP.--In the fiscal year 1999 Defense
    Authorization Act Congress created a simple and fair paid up provision
    for the Survivor Benefit Plan. A member who had paid into the program
    for 30 years and reached the age of 70 could stop paying premiums and
    still have the full protection of the plan for his or her spouse.
    Except that the effective date of this provision is October 1, 2008.
    Many have been paying for as long as 34 years.
        The Naval Reserve Association respectfully requests this
    subcommittee fund the SBP/DIC offset and 30 year paid-up SBP if
    authorized.
    Full Funding for the Defense Health Programs
        The Naval Reserve Association thanks the subcommittee's role in
    providing adequate funding for the Defense Health Program (DHP) in the
    past several budget cycles. As the cost of health care has risen
    throughout the country, you have provided adequate increases to the DHP
    to keep pace.
        This is again one of our membership's top priorities. With the
    additional costs that have come with the deployments to Southwest Asia,
    Afghanistan and Iraq, we must all stay vigilant against future
    budgetary shortfalls that would damage the quality and availability of
    health care.
        With the authorizers having postponed the Department of Defenses
    suggested fee increases, NRA is concerned that the budget saving have
    already been adjusted out of the President's proposed budget. We ask
    this subcommittee to continue to fund the DHP so that there will be no
    budget shortfalls.
        The Naval Reserve Association urges the subcommittee to continue to
    ensure full funding for the Defense Health Program including the full
    costs of all new TRICARE Reserve Select programs.
    MGIG-SR Enhancements
        The Department of the Navy has changed requirements for enlisted to
    advancement. Future enlisted leaders will be required to have associate
    and bachelor degrees in order to advance. This requirement will apply
    to Navy Reservists and will be difficult to obtain. This makes the
    Montgomery G.I. Bill for Selective Reserves (MGIB-SR) an important
    recruiting and retention tool as well as mandatory for those currently
    serving. With massive rotations the Reserve forces can expect to have
    retention shortfalls, unless the government provides incentives such as
    a college education. Education is not only a quality of life issue or a
    recruiting/retention issue it is also a readiness issue. Education a
    Reservist receives enhances their careers and usefulness to the
    military. The ever-growing complexity of weapons systems and support
    equipment requires a force with far higher education and aptitude than
    in previous years.
        The problem with the current MGIB-SR is that the Selected Reserve
    MGIB has failed to maintain a creditable rate of benefits with those
    authorized in Title 38, Chapter 30. Other than cost-of-living
    increases, only two improvements in benefits have been legislated since
    1985. In that year MGIB rates were established at 47 percent of active
    duty benefits. The current MGIB-SR rate is 27 percent of the Chapter 30
    benefits. Overall the allowance has inched up by only 7 percent since
    its inception, as the cost of education has climbed significantly.
        The NRA requests appropriations funding to raise the MGIB-SR and
    lock the rate at 50 percent of the Active Duty benefit.
        The Naval Reserve Association is fully appreciative of the
    subcommittee's actions and concerns for the health and welfare of our
    service personnel and their families. Therefore, we hope that this
    subcommittee can further advance these suggestions in this committee.
    We are very grateful for the opportunity to submit these issues of
    crucial concern to our collective memberships.
        I thank the committee for consideration of these equipment and
    manpower requirements that greatly impact our Active Duty and Reserve
    Component programs to assist the Navy Reserve in an age of increased
    sacrifice and utilization of these forces.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is the President of the
    Morris Heritage Foundation, Robert V. Morris.

    STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. MORRIS, PRESIDENT, MORRIS
                HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INC.
        Mr. Morris. Thank you, Senator Inouye, and it is certainly
    nice to see you again.
        The historic educational recognition opportunity--HERO--
    pilot program is critical to the future of America's armed
    forces and the long-term defense of our Nation. HERO seeks to
    stimulate the learning environment of America's diverse teenage
    population with accurate portrayals of black and female
    contributions to military history and their impact on equal
    opportunity in greater society. This youth education will
    enhance their understanding of and support for America's armed
    forces leading to escalating enlistment in the face of sharp
    declines, and of the long-term educational and socioeconomic
    benefits of military service.
        The number of blacks and females enlisting in America's
    armed forces has been in steady decline, reaching 40 percent
    for blacks over the past 5 years while black high school
    dropout, unemployment, and incarceration rates continue to
    increase. Black Army troops declined from 23.5 percent in
    fiscal year 2000 to 14 percent in fiscal year 2005, with
    females sliding from 22 to 17 percent over the same period.
    Contributing factors such as an improving economy, increased
    college enrollments, and fear of combat death in Iraq and
    Afghanistan, are shrinking black and female enlistment levels.
        In a rapidly expanding war against terrorism and
    aggression, direct and long-term action is needed to reverse
    this trend and revive black and female interest in military
    service. According to recruiters, respect for and knowledge of
    military service within a recruit's family, race, or gender,
    are proven determinants of enlistment, and current recruitment
    efforts are not going far enough.
        The HERO pilot program will create multicultural non-sexist
    academic lessons promoting the racial and gender equality
    legacy of the American military in the spirit of our patriarch,
    Lieutenant James B. Morris, who graduated the first Army black
    officers candidate class at Fort Des Moines in 1917, and led
    the U.S. Army 92d division, 366th infantry, in World War I
    France in 1918.
        The 5-year pilot program funding will be replaced by long-
    term private sector support and will initially target six
    public school districts of various sizes and geographic areas.
    The success of the bipartisan HERO pilot program will allow
    expansion to other minority groups in the future to invigorate
    the military enlistment pool for years to come.
        The HERO pilot program has been affirmatively reviewed by
    the U.S. Army recruiting command and consulting educators at
    the University of Iowa and U.S. Military Academy, among others.
    HERO has also been personally reviewed and acknowledged by a
    number of prominent military leaders and educators, including
    former Secretary of State General Colin Powell, and Major
    General Thomas Bostic, the Commander of the U.S. Army
    Recruiting Command.
        With this testimony, we request a $3.25 million
    appropriation for the HERO pilot program as a direct grant
    through the U.S. Army operations and maintenance funding.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you, sir. Would you care to have
    this pamphlet made part of the record?
        Mr. Morris. Yes.
        Senator Inouye. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Morris. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. And I thank you, sir.
        [The information follows:]

     Historic Educational Recognition Opportunity (HERO) Pilot Program 2006

                                  THE MISSION

        To win the hearts and minds of American's diverse teenage
    population with an accurate portrayal of black and female contributions
    to military history and their impact on equality in greater society
    through a consulting relationship with two legendary educational
    institutions. This youth education will stimulate their understanding
    of and support for America's Armed Forces leading to escalating
    enlistments in the face of sharp declines and of the long-term
    educational and socio-economic benefits of military service.

                                  THE PROJECT

        With youth education a primary goal of the Morris Heritage
    Foundation, Inc. (MHF), and in consultation with the University of Iowa
    and the United States Military Academy, we are creating multi-cultural,
    non-sexist academic lessons promoting the racial and gender equality
    history of the U.S. military in the spirit of our founders. The target
    audience for the lessons will be black and female youth who possess a
    limited historical knowledge of multi-cultural military contributions
    to the Nation. Initial public funding for the program will be replaced
    with long-term private sector support through success and exposure.
    This pilot program will target public school districts in six (6)
    target States representing diverse geographic and population
    characteristics. Pilot program success will key expansion to include
    other minority groups including Hispanic, Native, Asian and Pacific
    Islander. The HERO program is bi-partisan and non-political regarding
    any current issues or events.

                                THE ORGANIZATION

        MHF is an educational not-for-profit (IRS 501c3) organization based
    in Des Moines, Iowa founded in 2004. Our patriarch, Lt. James B.
    Morris, Sr., (1890-1977) graduated the Army's first black officer
    candidate class at Fort Des Moines, Iowa on October 15, 1917 and served
    with the American Expeditionary Force 3rd Battalion, 92nd Division,
    366th Infantry on the battlefields of WWI France where he survived two
    combat wounds in 1918. He returned to Iowa in 1919 where he began a
    legendary career as lawyer, educator and publisher of the oldest black
    newspaper west of the Mississippi River while co-founding the National
    Bar Association (NBA) in 1925 and the National Newspaper Publishers
    Association (NNPA) in 1940. His son, Captain James B. Morris, Jr.
    (1919-1976) served with the 6th Army in the WWII South Pacific where he
    won 4 bronze star medals of valor with an integrated intelligence unit
    within a racially segregated Army. His youngest son and MHF president
    Robert V. Morris created the $10 million Fort Des Moines Memorial Park
    to honor the original black officer class 1997 and chronicled Morris
    military achievements in Tradition And Valor: A Family Journey
    (Sunflower Press 1999). Fort Des Moines was also the birthplace of the
    WWII Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) in 1942.

                THE PROBLEM: BLACK AND FEMALE ENLISTMENT DECLINE

        The number of blacks and females enlisting in America's Armed
    Forces has been in steady decline reaching forty percent over the past
    5 years while black high school drop outs, unemployment and
    incarceration rates continue to increase. Black Army troops have
    declined from 23.5 percent in fiscal year 2000 to less than 14 percent
    in fiscal year 2005 with females sliding from 22 percent to 17 percent
    over the same period. Questionable factors including an improving
    economy, increased college enrollment, long-term engagements and fear
    of combat deaths particularly in Iraq are pushing black troop levels
    toward general population levels of 12 percent. In a rapidly expanding
    war against terrorism and aggression, direct action is needed to
    reverse this trend and revive black and female interest in military
    service. According to recruiters, respect for and knowledge of military
    service within a recruit's family, race or gender have long been key
    determinants of potential military service. These factors are the
    direct target of the HERO program.

                                 THE CURRICULUM

        To implement the program, 40 lessons will be developed which focus
    upon the stories and ideals representative of racial and gender
    equality in the Armed Forces and greater society. The lessons will
    focus upon the backgrounds, goals, motivations and achievements of
    black and female troops throughout history. Other lessons will present
    the social contexts of race and gender by defining the status and roles
    of blacks and women in America during the first half of the 20th
    century so the uniqueness and far-sightedness of the military can be
    appreciated. Twenty lessons will be created for upper-elementary or
    middle school students and 20 for high school students taking United
    States History during their sophomore and junior years. At each level,
    the curriculum will also be adult friendly. Besides content and appeal,
    the lessons will share the following qualities:
        Self-Contained.--Because most teachers are severely overworked and
    have little time to research and develop quality lessons themselves,
    each lesson will be self-contained so that teachers will have all the
    materials and directions needed to implement the lesson in their
    classroom whether it be in a large city or small, isolated rural
    community.
        Interactive Nature.--Every lesson will include interactive
    materials of high interest to students. For example, a lesson about the
    traits and backgrounds of those who entered the black officers training
    program at Fort Des Moines in 1917 will direct students to existing
    data bases in order to develop hypotheses about the socio-economic
    characteristics of those attracted to the program. Another lesson could
    do the same on the women of the WAC.
        Diverse Learning.--In order to broaden the appeal and use of
    lessons they will appeal to diverse learning styles and abilities. For
    example, students who learns hands-on will use gaming programs in the
    lessons which present problems such as issues of racial and gender
    discrimination while younger learners deal with how to survive boot
    camp in which both groups develop strategies for overcoming the
    obstacles.
        Primary Source Materials.--Drawing from the MHF data base, the
    lessons will include primary source materials including reproduced
    letters, photos, film clips, training manuals, newspaper articles and
    other documents. Not only will students use primary sources as
    essential components of the lessons, but will the MHF data base and
    other sources.
        Independent Nature.--One problem teachers of history and social
    sciences experience is the dilemma of too much material and too little
    time to teach it which discourages teachers from using materials which
    do not fit the learning objectives of courses they teach.
        Independent Study.--All lessons will be linked to an ``independent
    study'' strand utilizing the data base so that students (and adults)
    individually may work the lessons without teacher assistance.
        Internet Distribution.--Lessons will be made available to teachers,
    students and adults via MHF website and other curriculum distribution
    sites. This is essential because printed lessons are often lost or
    discarded making them unavailable to new teachers of the subjects.
        Teacher Guide.--Each lesson will include a teacher guide, student
    pages, related research and primary sources and internet links to other
    sites. The Internet pages will be exciting, youth friendly, and will
    include animation and simulations. It is estimated that each lesson
    will require approximately 15 internet pages, so the entire project
    will require over 600 new pages on the website.

                        CURRICULUM DISTRIBUTION METHODS

        In order to market the lessons to school districts and teaching
    professionals, project staff will conduct workshops at selected teacher
    conferences and market the program through educational like the
    Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development and the National
    Middle School Association. In addition, our staff will utilize existing
    educational distribution sources like Scholastic, Channel One and
    AOL@SCHOOL and link to key websites.

                             TELEVISION PRODUCTION

        MHF will produce five (5) high definition (HD) television
    documentaries of 28:00 in length which will be broken into 14:00 shorts
    for classroom use. The documentaries will bring history to life and
    feature animation and celebrity narrators in bi-lingual formats and
    also be available for telecast on Armed Forces Television world-wide.

                             INITIAL LESSON TOPICS

        The original eleven (11) lesson topics analyze how the military led
    greater American society toward racial and gender equality, including:
        The Revolution.--Black freeman Crispus Attucks became the first
    soldier to die in the Revolutionary War. The tragic incident began the
    long history of black military service in support of the United States
    of America.
        Slavery and the Civil War.--The slave revolts of Nat Turner and
    abolitionist John Brown highlight the cruel and savage industry of
    American slavery. How the slaves reacted to the Civil War and black
    troop participation in the Union Army changed America forever. Lessons
    will examine slave culture, the underground railroad and black military
    participation in the Civil War as well as post-war freemen flight to
    the north and western United States that often ended in disaster.
        Buffalo Soldiers and Western Expansion.--After the Civil War, many
    Union Army soldiers and freemen formed four legendary black units on
    the plains and in the southwest. The U.S. Army's 9th and 10th Cavalry
    ``Buffalo Soldiers'' and the 24th and 25th Infantry fought Indians,
    Mexicans and whites in a variety of settings and also performed tedious
    and dangerous assignments rooted in racial discrimination. Lessons will
    separate fact from fiction as to who these men were and what they did
    during and after their military service.
        WWI Black Officers Take Charge.--The Army's first officer candidate
    class for blacks drew an elite group of men to Fort Des Moines, Iowa in
    1917. Although three blacks had previously graduated West Point, the
    1,250 candidates of the 17th Provisional Training Regiment represented
    the first group training ever performed. The class consisted of 1,000
    college graduates and faculty and 250 non-commissioned officers from
    the 9th and 10th Cavalry ``Buffalo Soldiers'' and the 24th and 25th
    Infantry stationed on the plains and in the southwest. The 639
    graduating captains and lieutenants served valiantly with the 3rd
    Battalion 92nd Division of the American Expeditionary Force on the
    battlefields of World War One France in 1918 as the first black combat
    regiment commanded by black officers. Lessons will explore who these
    men were and their impact on the military command structure and greater
    society.
        WWI Negrophilia and the New Negro.--The black officers of the U.S.
    Army played a major role in the European avant-garde cultural
    revolution during and after World War One. Lt. John Reece Europe's
    fabulous ``Hell Fighters Band,'' along with others, introduced the
    continent to the jazz craze that drove Paris wild and impacted every
    aspect of European culture between 1918 and 1930. Paralleling the
    Harlem (New York) Renaissance, participants ranged from entertainers
    Josephine Baker and Paul Robeson to legendary French artist Picasso.
    The highly educated black officers, labeled ``New Negroes'' by the
    French, presented a direct contradiction to the popular European
    colonial concept of primitivism. These lessons are culture and arts
    oriented.
        WWII Women at War and Beyond.--Over 72,000 women trained at Fort
    Des Moines, Iowa between 1942 and 1945 including 7,000 college educated
    officers becoming the first female Army troops. The racially integrated
    training contained 3,600 black enlisted women and 118 officers. Lessons
    will preview who they were, where they came from and what they did
    during and after World War Two. What they and their military
    descendants' impact was on gender equality throughout the military and
    greater society.
        WWII Tuskegee Airmen.--Within a legendary World War Two combat
    unit, Iowan Luther Smith could be the greatest Tuskegee Airmen story of
    them all. After 133 combat missions, a fiery plane crash with severe
    injuries and 7 months as a Nazi POW, how could Captain Smith survive to
    become NASA's first black aerospace engineer and one of seven veterans
    invited to accompany President William Clinton to Europe for the 50th
    anniversary of WWII? Lessons will study unit history and individual
    stories of the Tuskegee Airmen themselves and their impact of greater
    society.
        Korea and Combat Integration.--After President Truman's 1948
    executive order ending racial segregation in America's Armed Forces was
    effectively ignored by military leaders, China's entrance into the
    Korean conflict made black troopers the combat replacement of choice. A
    new level of popularity and danger led to heroic service by black
    troops in the midst of discrimination and hatred but opened the door
    for integration on the battlefield. Lessons will discuss the many
    contradictions of the Korean War and the fledgling civil rights
    movement back home.
        Black Troops in Vietnam.--From the ``Black Power'' movement of
    urban America to the dangerous jungles of Vietnam, black troops served
    with distinction in an unpopular war. The Vietnam War contradicted the
    racial segregation of WWII by loading combat units with black draftees
    resulting in disproportionately high casualty rates. Lessons will
    examine the racial, socio-economic and political reasons black troops
    fought overseas and protested at home and what American society learned
    from this controversial period.
        The War on Terrorism.--International relations from century old
    European colonialism to religious, ethnic and racial intolerance
    provide a bloody history creating today's events. Distinguish players
    in the deadly game of international and domestic terrorism and their
    impact on American society before and after 9/11 are identified and
    analyzed. Lessons will concentrate on understanding all aspects of
    terrorism and its roots.
        Today's Military.--Discusses the socio-economic and educational
    opportunities and risks of service in today's modern military in every
    branch and the future. The impact of military service alternatives on
    black and female high school drop-out, teen-pregnancy, unemployment and
    incarceration rates are analyzed. Lessons will also review selected
    military careers and resulting career opportunities after service.

                                 ACADEMIC NEED

        According to the U.S. Department of Education, youth residing in
    both urban and rural areas have limited exposure to accurate multi-
    cultural historical curricula and thus possess a narrow interpretation
    of American history. The Federal Government, and most States, mandate
    multi-cultural non-sexist education. Although very worthy, little has
    been done by educational agencies to help teachers fulfill their multi-
    cultural non-sexist goals. The problem is particularly critical for
    teachers in small rural school districts where they are often assigned
    many duties and academic preparations and have little time to develop
    effective lessons with multi-cultural, non-sexist themes. The problem
    is accentuated by the reality that because an aging national teacher
    workforce, more young, inexperienced teachers are assigned to teach
    history courses.

                               PROGRAM EVALUATION

        HERO pilot project success will be evaluated in a number of ways
    including:
      --Number of hits on project website and internet surveys.
      --Evaluations from teachers who attend in-service presentations
            conducted by project staff and follow-up questionnaires.
      --Evaluations from focus groups of teachers from targeted school
            districts.
      --Surveys from participating faculty and students in targeted school
            districts.
      --Increase in black and female military enlistments from targeted
            school districts.

                                 PILOT PROGRAM

        This original program will be implemented in selected school
    districts in six (6) States and school districts representing the
    Nation's geographic resources and large to small black population areas
    according to the 2004 U.S. Census and National Center for Education
    Statistics, including:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Black                                    High School     Black
                       State                     Population         School District           Students     Percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New York..................................    3,361,053  New York City................    1,049,831         34.4
    Texas.....................................    2,633,219  Houston ISD..................      210,950         31.3
    Georgia...................................    2,612,936  Atlanta City.................       56,586         89.2
    California................................    2,436,678  Los Angeles Unified..........      735,058         12.4
    Michigan..................................    1,450,583  Detroit City.................      166,675         90.8
    Iowa......................................       67,596  Des Moines Independent.......       32,010         15.3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Program Budget (estimated)                      Total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Website development.....................................         $50,000
    HD Television production................................         400,000
    Project staff...........................................         980,000
    Equipment and office expenses...........................         250,000
    Marketing and distribution..............................         950,000
    Travel and entertainment................................         270,000
    School District Participation Fee (6)...................         250,000
    Education consultants (curriculum and program                    100,000
     development)...........................................
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................       3,250,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                BUDGET NARRATIVE

        Website Development.--A new website with over forty (40) new web
    pages requires a professional developer who will also provide on-going
    updates and maintenance. This expense includes creation, page design
    and 60-months of website hosting, $50,000.
        Documentary Production.--The expense includes pre-production
    including script development, high definition (HD) production and post-
    production services with 3D and 2D digital effects of the ten 28:00
    programs broken into 14:00 blocks. It also includes program satellite
    uplink, website upload or DVD and VHS bicycling as needed to distribute
    the products. This category also includes director and crew services
    and remote and post-production equipment and services, $400,000.
        Project Staff.--The project team will include full time director
    and administrative assistant with two part-time researchers and two
    teacher advisory committees totaling $980,000.
      --Project Director will be an experienced educator and energetic
            self-starter with solid leadership and communications skills.
            The director will possess considerable teaching, writing and
            research skills and a firm command of the Internet, anticipated
            costs are $75,000 salary and $15,000 (20 percent) for benefits
            or $90,000 for 5 years totaling $450,000.
      --Project Coordinator supports project director with administrative
            and managerial services and provides secondary leadership to
            project operations. This position includes non-profit
            managerial and accounting experience working with accounting
            and auditing support to insure financial, insurance and
            institutional efficiency and support, $50,000 salary and
            $10,000 (20 percent) benefits.
      --Administrative Assistant is a full-time position including all
            administrative and clerical duties over a 5 year period. Salary
            is $20,000 plus $4,000 (20 percent) benefits or $24,000 at 5
            years $120,000.
      --Research Assistants consist of two (2) experienced part-time
            researchers for content and curriculum development and then
            statistical recovery, interpretation and analysis throughout
            the project term. They will assist director and pre-production
            script development. Anticipated cost for each part-time
            researcher are $25,000 salary and $5,000 (20 percent) for
            benefits with a 5 year total of $300,000.
      --Teacher Advisors will consist of eight (8) experienced history
            teachers, including military history, who possess knowledge of
            electronically provided lessons at the upper elementary, middle
            and high school levels. This group will also participate in
            focus groups and receive $2,400 per year and related expenses
            for their 2 years of time for a total of $40,000.
        Equipment Expenses at base office consist of computer hardware and
    software and additional office rent, utilities, equipment and furniture
    totaling $250,000 including:
      --Office rent, utilities, etc.
      --Desk (3) and laptop (3) computers with software.
      --Color printer, scanner, copy and fax machines with telephone
            system.
      --HD video recorder/players with time code readers and monitor for
            logging tapes and pre-paring rough edit cuts will reduce final
            edit costs.
        Marketing and Public Relations includes professional agency
    services to directly reach high school administrators, educators,
    students and parents with an uplifting and positive message about the
    program and its long-range benefits. These activities include
    developing press releases and custom kits, fact sheets, Q&As and
    testimonials from successful black and female veterans and selected
    celebrities. Establishing distribution collaborations with AOL@SCHOOL,
    scholastic and other existing educational networks and scheduling
    interviews for radio, television, print media and direct group
    presentations by staff, veterans and selected celebrities, $950,000.
        Travel and Entertainment consists of staff travel to selected
    educational, historical and military conferences and for meetings with
    participant school districts, media entities and corporate sponsors.
    All per diem and related expenses will be consistent with federal
    government guidelines, $270,000.
        School District Participation Fees will reimburse six public
    districts for efforts in implementing and reporting the program results
    in their respective cities reducing political and anti-military
    resistance, $250,000.
        Educational Consultants include industry professionals, the
    University of Iowa and U.S. Military Academy providing assistance in
    curriculum development, program implementation and success reporting
    and interpretation from participating districts, $100,000.

                              COMPLETION SCHEDULE

        Upon funding confirmation and team hiring, the following schedule
    will be completed over a 24-month development and 36-month maturation
    period are as follows:
      --Month 1: Identify teacher advisory teams and website and
            distribution experts.
      --Month 2-7: Perform research, interviews including research trips as
            mentioned in the narrative.
      --Month 8: Present research to teacher teams and develop lesson
            formats.
      --Month 9-14: Develop lessons and perform lesson planning and
            documentary pre-production.
      --Month 15: Perform lesson revisions including evaluation process and
            conference presentation formats.
      --Month 16-19: Pilot lessons ready, finish website, data base and
            documentary production.
      --Month 20: Final revisions of lessons with modifications from
            teacher advisors.
      --Month 21-24: Website, data base and documentary post-production
            completed with marketing activities in full swing.
      --Month 25-60: Marketing to grow project to full pilot state and
            national recognition.

                               PROJECT LEADERSHIP

        The project leadership team includes a wide-variety of
    distinguished professionals and educational institutions bringing
    considerable expertise to all elements of the HERO project including:

                        MORRIS HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INC.

        Morris Heritage Foundation, Inc. (MHF) is a 501c3 not-for-profit
    Iowa corporation specializing in mass communications and educational
    projects and based in Des Moines, Iowa. MHF president Robert V. Morris,
    who created the HERO program, is a consultant, educator, publisher,
    author and television producer. A 1982 graduate of the University of
    Iowa and former Iowa State University journalism instructor (1994), he
    founded the $10 million Fort Des Moines Memorial Park in 1997, the Iowa
    Tuskegee Airmen Memorial in 2002 and the Architecture, Construction and
    Engineering (ACE) Mentor Iowa program in 2005. Morris has produced
    numerous educational mass media projects including the award winning
    documentary Tradition And Valor (56:00) with Iowa Public Television in
    1994. MHF board of directors includes Steven T. Berry, a masters
    graduate of the prestigious UCLA Film School and a professor of mass
    communications at Howard University in Washington, DC., Robert A.
    Wright, Sr., a noted attorney and former national board member of the
    NAACP and Luther H. Smith a legendary WWII Tuskegee Airman, aerospace
    engineer and educator.

                               UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

        Professor Frederick Woodard is an intellectual historian heading
    the African-American English department at the prestigious Big 10
    University and will lead a graduate student consulting team on an as
    needed basis. Professor Woodard is the author of Reasons To Dream (UI
    Press) and has produced international documentaries on Africa for the
    U.S. Information Agency.

                         UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

        Col. Lance Betros, history department head at the historic United
    States Military Academy at West Point, New York will provide historical
    consultation on a voluntary as-needed basis.
        NOTE: Additional professional consultants could be utilized on an
    as needed basis.

                        GEN. COLIN L. POWELL, USA (RET)

        The HERO Program was reviewed by former U.S. Secretary of State and
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin L. Powell who
    responded affirmatively on April 2, 2006.

                          U.S. ARMY RECRUITING COMMAND

        M/Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, commander, U.S. Army Recruiting Command
    at Fort Knox. Kentucky since October 2005 is a West Point and Stanford
    University graduate who personally reviewed the HERO program. HERO was
    also evaluated by USAREC G-5 office of marketing, partnerships and
    outreach and a program content support letter was released on March 28,
    2006.

     PILOT PROGRAM PARTICIPATING SCHOOL DISTRICT CONTACTS (PENDING CONTACT
                               AND CONFIRMATION)

        Atlanta Public School District--Beverly L. Hall, Ed.D,
    superintendent, 130 Trinity Avenue, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Tel:
    404-802-2820.
        Des Moines Independent School District--Linda Lane, superintendent,
    1801 16th Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50314-1902, Tel: 515-242-7837.
        Detroit Public Schools--Beverly A. Gray, Ed.D, curriculum
    development, Albert Kahn Building, 7430 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor, Detroit,
    Michigan 48202, Tel: 313-873-7705.
        Houston Independent School District--Dr. Abelardo Saavedra,
    superintendent, 3830 Richmond Avenue, Houston, Texas 77027. Tel: 713-
    892-6300.
        Los Angeles Unified--Roy Romer, superintendent, 333 South Beaudry
    Avenue, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017, Tel; 213-241-7000.
        New York City Public School District--Laura Kotch, executive
    director of curriculum development, 52 Chambers Street, New York, New
    York 10007, Tel; 212-374-0396.

                           POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES

        Funding ($3.25 million) for the HERO pilot program will be sought
    from one or a combination of the following sources upon proposal
    finalization.
      --U.S. Congressional Defense (O-1) ``Civilian Education and
            Training'' earmark for fiscal year 2007 submitted to the Senate
            Defense Appropriations Subcommittee chaired by Senator Ted
            Stevens (R-AK) with ranking member Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
            sponsored by appropriations committee member Senator Tom Harkin
            (D-IA) with support from finance committee chairman Senator
            Charles Grassley (R-IA). Note: MHF President Morris has
            testified four times before the committee winning $8.5 million
            in three earmarks for Fort Des Moines Memorial Park between
            1998-2002.
      --Corporate Prime Defense Contractor foundations of top industry
            companies will be approached including: Northrop Grumman,
            Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Boeing, etc.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is the Deputy Director of
    the American Legion, Mr. Dennis Duggan.

    STATEMENT OF DENNIS DUGGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
                LEGION
        Mr. Duggan. Good morning, Senator Inouye. It is good to see
    you again, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Welcome, sir.
        Mr. Duggan. On behalf of the Nation's largest organization
    of wartime veterans, the American Legion is always grateful to
    you and members of the subcommittee, in order to present its
    views on defense appropriations for fiscal year 2007. We have
    always valued your leadership, as well as your extensive
    experience as a veteran, sir, and the most highly decorated
    one, at that, in assessing and authorizing adequate
    appropriations for a strong national defense, especially during
    this challenging war on terrorism, in which are Active,
    Reserves, and National Guard, are fighting, and are being
    wounded and killed practically daily.
        Although the President's 2007 defense budget represents
    about 3.9 percent of the gross domestic product, we understand,
    we have been reminded, particularly by the Army, that past
    defense budgets during time of war and in some buildups have
    been nearly twice that percentage at about 8 percent of gross
    domestic product.
        We are aware that there is an accompanying supplemental
    budget also to pay for the cost of the war, as well.
        This defense budget has several--in fact, a number of
    major, major, hefty objectives; that is, to continue to advance
    ongoing efforts to prevail in the global war on terror, defend
    the homeland against threats, maintain America's military
    superiority, and to support servicemembers and their families.
        The administration's proposed 2.2 percent pay raise in the
    face of an increasing inflation rate, we believe needs to be
    raised to 2.7 percent in the Senate, as was previously done in
    the House.
        As mentioned previously, the American Legion also believes
    that the Army and Marine Corps manpower strength should be
    statutorily increased to 30,000 more for the Army, 1,000 for
    the Marine Corps, and some 17,000 for the National Guard.
        With the Army's recruiting picture somewhat improved, the
    Army has indicated that they have been trying to recruit
    actually for an increased authorization, and they are making
    some progress in that regard.
        Likewise, TRICARE fees for working military retirees under
    the age of 65 should not be increased, we believe. We believe
    that should be set aside, and for sure not increased for fiscal
    year 2007. What we are saying here is that the defense health
    program, as originally programmed, we believe should be fully
    funded.
        Likewise we believe, though, that the premium-based TRICARE
    health care plan--and I know this will be expensive--should be
    extended to drilling reservists and guardsmen, or what they
    call a Select Reserve, a measure which we believe passed the
    Senate last year, but not the House.
        We are particularly supportive of a bill also, and it was
    sponsored by Senator Boxer from California, and recognizably,
    this is an authorization issue and not strictly an
    appropriations one. But it would provide for the posthumous
    awarding of purple hearts for American prisoners of war who
    died in or due to hostile captivity. Amazingly, that provision
    is not provided for in service or Purple Heart regulations. And
    we would like to see it taken back, applied to any member of
    the Armed Forces who was held as a prisoner of war in any
    conflict after December 7, 1941.
        Finally, Senator Inouye, we would ask that the defense
    prisoner of war (POW) missing in action (MIA) personnel office
    be fully funded now and in the future years, so they can
    continue in their essential function of attempting to achieve
    full accounting, mainly through excavations, in Vietnam and
    Korea.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and again we
    appreciate this opportunity very much, and thank you for all
    you do for the national defense of this country.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much. Your recommendation
    on POW purple hearts and the MIA is not only reasonable; I
    think it should be done right away.
        Mr. Duggan. Okay, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
        Just in case some of you are wondering why this empty
    chamber, at this moment the House and Senate Members are
    gathering to listen to the speech of the new prime minister of
    Israel. And so I'm here to listen to you.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Dennis Michael Duggan

        Mr. Chairman: The American Legion is grateful for the opportunity
    to present its views on defense appropriations for fiscal year 2007.
    The American Legion values your leadership in assessing and authorizing
    adequate funding for quality-of-life (QOL) features of the Nation's
    Armed Forces to include the Active, Reserve and National Guard forces
    and their families, as well as quality of life for military retirees
    and their dependents.
        Since September 2001, the United States has been involved in the
    war against terrorism in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
    American fighting men and women are again proving they are the best-
    trained, best-equipped and best-led military in the world. As Secretary
    of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has noted, the war in Iraq is part of a
    long, dangerous global war on terrorism. The war on terrorism is being
    waged on two fronts: overseas against armed insurgents and at home
    protecting and securing the homeland. Casualties in the shooting wars,
    in terms of those killed and seriously wounded, continue to mount
    daily. Indeed, most of what we as Americans hold dear is made possible
    by the peace and stability that the Armed Forces provide by taking the
    fight to the enemy.
        The American Legion adheres to the principle that this Nation's
    Armed Forces must be well-manned and equipped, not just to pursue war,
    but to preserve and protect the peace. The American Legion strongly
    believes past and current military downsizing were budget-driven rather
    than threat-focused. Once Army divisions, Navy warships and Air Force
    fighter squadrons are downsized, eliminated or retired from the force
    structure, they cannot be reconstituted quickly enough to meet new
    threats or emergency circumstances. The Active-Duty Army, Army National
    Guard and the Reserves have failed to meet their recruiting goals, and
    the Army's stop-loss policies have obscured retention and recruiting
    needs. Clearly, the Active Army is struggling to meet its recruitment
    goals. Military morale undoubtedly has been adversely affected by the
    extension and repetition of Iraq tours of duty.
        The administration's fiscal year 2007 budget requests more than
    $441 billion for defense or about 17 percent of the total budget. The
    fiscal year 2007 defense budget represents a 6.8 percent increase in
    defense spending over current funding levels. It also represents about
    3.9 percent of our Gross National Product. Active duty military
    manpower end-strength is now over 1.41 million. Selected Reserve
    strength is about 863,300 or reduced by about 25 percent from its
    strength levels during the Gulf War of 14 years ago.
        Mr. Chairman, this budget must advance ongoing efforts to prevail
    in the global war on terrorism, defend the homeland against threats,
    maintain America's military superiority, and to support servicemembers
    and their families. A decade of over-use of the military and past
    under-funding, necessitates a sustained investment. The American Legion
    believes the budget must continue to maintain Army end-strengths, fully
    fund Tricare programs, accelerate improved Active and Reserve
    Components' quality of life features, provide increased funding for the
    concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and VA disability
    compensation (``Veterans Disability Tax'') and elimination of the
    offset of survivors benefit plan (SBP) and Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation (DIC) that continues to penalize military survivors.
        If we are to win the war on terror and prepare for the wars of
    tomorrow, we must take care of the Department of Defense's greatest
    assets--the men and women in uniform. They do us proud in Iraq,
    Afghanistan and around the world. They need our help.
        In order to attract and retain the necessary force over the long
    haul, the Active Duty force, Reserves, and National Guard continue to
    look for talent in an open market place and to compete with the private
    sector for the best young people this Nation has to offer. If we are to
    attract them to military service in the Active and Reserve Components,
    we need to count on their patriotism and willingness to sacrifice, to
    be sure, but we must also provide them the proper incentives. They love
    their country, but they also love their families--and many have
    children to support, raise and educate. We have always asked the men
    and women in uniform to voluntarily risk their lives to defend us; we
    should not ask them to forego adequate pay and allowances, adequate
    health care and subject their families to repeated unaccompanied
    deployments and sub-standard housing as well. Undoubtedly, retention
    and recruiting budgets need to be substantially increased if we are to
    keep and recruit quality servicemembers.
        The President's fiscal year 2007 defense budget requests over $10.8
    billion for military pay and allowances, including a 2.2 percent
    across-the-board pay raise. This pay raise is inadequate and needs to
    be substantially increased. It also includes billions to improve
    military housing, putting the Department on track to eliminate most
    substandard housing by 2007--several years sooner than previously
    planned. The fiscal year 2006 budget further lowered out-of-pocket
    housing costs for those living off base. The American Legion encourages
    the subcommittee to continue the policy of no out-of-pocket housing
    costs in future years and to end the military pay differential with the
    private sector.
        Together, these investments in people are critical, because smart
    weapons are worthless to us unless they are in the hands of smart,
    well-trained soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guard
    personnel.
        The American Legion National Commander has visited American troops
    in Europe, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and South Korea as well as a number of
    installations throughout the United States, including Walter Reed Army
    Medical Center and Bethesda National Naval Medical Center. During these
    visits, he was able to see first-hand the urgent, immediate need to
    address real quality of life challenges faced by servicemembers and
    their families. Severely wounded servicemembers who have families and
    are convalescing in military hospitals clearly need to continue to
    receive the best of care, particularly for PTSD, and the DOD interface
    with the VA must be seamless. Also, the medical evaluation board
    process needs to be expedited so that military severance and disability
    retirement pays will be more immediately forthcoming. The soldiers'
    best interests must be fairly represented before the medical evaluation
    boards. Our national commanders have spoken with families on Women's
    and Infants' Compensation (WIC), which is an absolute necessity to
    larger military families. Quality-of-life issues for servicemembers,
    coupled with combat tours and other operational tempos, play a role in
    recurring recruitment and retention efforts and should come as no
    surprise. The operational tempo and lengthy deployments, to include
    multiple combat tours, must be reduced or curtailed. Military missions
    were on the rise before September 11 and deployment levels remain high.
    The only way to reduce repetitive overseas tours and the overuse of the
    Reserves is to recruit and fill authorized Army endstrengths and
    perhaps Reserve endstrengths for the services.
        Military pay must be on a par with the competitive civilian sector.
    Activated Reservists must receive the same equipment, the same pay and
    timely health care as Active Duty personnel. The Reserve Montgomery GI
    Bill must be as lucrative as the MGI Bill for Active Duty personnel. If
    other benefits, like health care improvements, commissaries, adequate
    quarters, quality child care and impact aid for DOD education are
    reduced, they will only serve to further undermine efforts to recruit
    and retain the brightest and best this Nation has to offer.
        To step up efforts to bring in enlistees, all the Army components
    are increasing the number of recruiters. The Army National Guard sent
    1,400 new recruiters into the field last February. The Army Reserve is
    expanding its recruiting force by about 80 percent. If the recruiting
    trends and the demand for forces persist, the Pentagon under current
    policies could eventually ``run out'' of Reserve forces for war zone
    rotation, a Government Accountability Office expert warned. The
    Pentagon projects a need to keep more than 100,000 Reservists
    continuously over the next 3 to 5 years. The Defense Appropriations
    bill for fiscal year 2005 provided the funding for the first year force
    level increases of 10,000. The Army's end-strength increased 30,000 and
    the Marine Corps end-strength increased 3,000.
        Army restructuring would have increased the number of Active Army
    maneuver brigades by 30 percent by fiscal year 2007. Neither Active
    Duty nor National Guard combat brigades should be reduced. Clearly,
    reducing combat units during wartime should not be the bill payer for
    modernization.
        The budget deficit is projected to be $427 billion which is the
    largest in U.S. history, and it appears to be heading higher perhaps to
    $500 billion. National defense spending must not become a casualty of
    deficit reduction.

                         FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION (FHP)

        As American military forces are again engaged in combat overseas,
    the health and welfare of deployed troops is of utmost concern to The
    American Legion. The need for effective coordination between the
    Department of Veterans Affairs and the DOD in the force protection of
    U.S. forces is paramount. It has been 15 years since the first Gulf
    War, yet many of the hazards of the 1991 conflict are still present in
    the current war.
        Prior to the 1991 Gulf War deployment, troops were not
    systematically given comprehensive pre-deployment health examinations
    nor were they properly briefed on the potential hazards, such as
    fallout from depleted uranium munitions they might encounter. Record
    keeping was poor. Numerous examples of lost or destroyed medical
    records of Active Duty and Reserve personnel were identified. Physical
    examinations (pre/and post-deployment) were not comprehensive and
    information regarding possible environmental hazard exposures was
    severely lacking. Although the government had conducted more than 230
    research projects at a cost of $240 million, lack of crucial deployment
    data resulted in many unanswered questions about Gulf War veterans'
    illnesses.
        The American Legion would like to specifically identify an element
    of FHP that deals with DOD's ability to accurately record a
    servicemember's health status prior to deployment and document or
    evaluate any changes in his or her health that occurred during
    deployment. This is exactly the information VA needs to adequately care
    for and compensate servicemembers for service-related disabilities once
    they leave active duty. Although DOD has developed post-deployment
    questionnaires, they still do not fulfill the requirement of
    ``thorough'' medical examinations nor do they even require a medical
    officer to administer the questionnaires. Due to the duration and
    extent of sustained combat in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
    Freedom, the psychological impact on deployed personnel is of utmost
    concern to The American Legion. VA's ability to adequately care for and
    compensate our Nation's veterans depends directly on DOD's efforts to
    maintain proper health records/health surveillance, documentation of
    troop locations, environmental hazard exposure data and the timely
    sharing of this information with the VA.
        The early signs of PTSD must be detected early-on and completely
    treated by the military and the VA. The American Legion strongly urges
    Congress to mandate separation physical exams for all servicemembers,
    particularly those who have served in combat zones or have had
    sustained deployments. DOD reports that only about 20 percent of
    discharging servicemembers opt to have separation physical exams.
    During this war on terrorism and frequent deployments with all their
    strains and stresses, this figure, we believe, should be substantially
    increased.

                            MILITARY QUALITY OF LIFE

        Our major national security concern continues to be the enhancement
    of the quality of life issues for Active Duty servicemembers,
    Reservists, National Guardsmen, military retirees and their families.
    During the last congressional session, President Bush and the Congress
    made marked improvements in an array of quality of life issues for
    military personnel and their families. These efforts are vital
    enhancements that must be sustained.
        Mr. Chairman, during this period of the war on terrorism, more
    quality of life improvements are required to meet the needs of
    servicemembers and their families as well as military retiree veterans
    and their families. For example, the proposed 2.2 percent pay-raise
    needs to be significantly increased. The 4.4 percent military
    comparability gap with the private sector needs to be eliminated; the
    improved Reserve MGIB for education needs to be completely funded as
    well; combat wounded soldiers who are evacuated from combat zones to
    military hospitals need to retain their special pays and base pay and
    allowances continued at the same level so as not to jeopardize their
    family's financial support during recovery. Furthermore, the medical
    evaluation board process needs to be expedited and considerate of the
    soldiers' best interest so that any adjudicated military severance or
    military disability retirement payments will be immediately
    forthcoming; recruiting and retention efforts, to include the provision
    of more service recruiters, needs to be fully funded as does recruiting
    advertising. The Defense Health Program and, in particular, the Tricare
    healthcare programs need to be fully funded.
        The Defense Department, Congress and The American Legion all have
    reason to be concerned about the rising cost of military healthcare.
    But it is important to recognize that the bulk of the problem is a
    national one, not a military specific one. It is also extremely
    important, in these days of record deficits, that we focus on the
    government's unique responsibility and moral obligation to fully fund
    the Defense Health program, particularly its Tricare programs, to
    provide for the career military force that has served for multiple
    decades under extraordinarily arduous conditions to protect and
    preserve our national welfare. In this regard, the government's
    responsibility and obligations to its servicemembers and military
    retirees go well beyond those of corporate employers. The Constitution
    puts the responsibility on the government to provide for the common
    defense and on the Congress to raise and maintain military forces. No
    corporate employer shares such awesome responsibilities.
        The American Legion recommends against implementing any increases
    in healthcare fees for uniformed services and retiree beneficiaries.
    Dr. William Winkenwerder, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Heath
    Affairs), briefed The American Legion and other VSOs/MSOs that rising
    military healthcare costs are ``impinging on other service programs.''
    Other reports indicate that the DOD leadership is seeking more funding
    for weapons programs by reducing the amount it spends on military
    healthcare and other personnel needs. The American Legion believes
    strongly that America can afford to, and must, pay for both weapons and
    military healthcare. The American Legion also believes strongly that
    the proposed defense budget is too small to meet the needs of national
    defense. Today's defense budget, during wartime, is less than 4 percent
    of GDP, well short of the average for the peacetime years since WWII.
    Defense leaders assert that substantial military fee increases are
    needed to bring military beneficiary costs more in live with civilian
    practices. But such comparisons with corporate practices is
    inappropriate as it disregards the service and sacrifices military
    members, retirees and families have made in service to the Nation.
        The reciprocal obligation of the government to maintain an
    extraordinary benefit package to offset the extraordinary sacrifices of
    career military members is a practical as well as moral obligation.
    Eroding benefits for career service can only undermine long-term
    retention and readiness. One reason why Congress enacted Tricare for
    Life is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time said that inadequate
    retiree healthcare was affecting attitudes among active duty troops.
    The American Legion believes it was inappropriate to put the Joint
    Services in the untenable position of being denied sufficient funding
    for current readiness needs if they didn't agree to beneficiary benefit
    cuts.
        Reducing military retirements budgets, such as Tricare healthcare,
    would be penny-wise and pound-foolish when recruiting is already a
    problem and an overstressed and overstrengthened force is at increasing
    retention risks. Very simply the DOD should be required to pursue
    greater efforts to improve Tricare and find more effective and
    appropriate ways to make Tricare more cost-effective without seeking to
    ``tax'' beneficiaries and making unrealistic budget assumptions.
        The American Legion applauds Congress for extending Tricare Reserve
    Select coverage to all members of the Selected Reserve. DOD is relying
    on the Guard and Reserve more heavily and deployments are becoming
    longer and more frequent as they are indispensable parts of our Armed
    Forces, and many Reservists and their families have no medical
    insurance.
        Likewise, military retiree veterans as well as their survivors, who
    have served their country for decades in war and peace, require
    continued quality of life improvements as well. First and foremost, The
    American Legion strongly urges that FULL concurrent receipt and Combat-
    Related Special Compensation (CRSC) be authorized for disabled retirees
    whether they were retired for longevity (20 or more years of service)
    or military disability retirement with fewer than 20 years. In
    particular, The American Legion urges that disabled retirees rated 40
    percent and below be authorized CRPD and that disabled retirees rated
    between 50 percent and 90 percent disabled be authorized non-phased-in
    concurrent receipt. Additionally, The American Legion strongly urges
    that all military disability retirees with fewer than 20 years service
    be authorized to receive CRSC and VA disability compensation provided,
    of course, they're otherwise eligible for CRSC under the combat-related
    conditions. The funding for these military disability retirees with
    fewer than 20 years is a ``cost of war'' and perhaps should be paid
    from the annual supplemental budgets.
        Secondly, The American Legion urges that the longstanding inequity
    whereby military survivors have their survivors benefit plan (SBP)
    offset by the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) be
    eliminated. This ``Widows' Tax'' needs to be corrected as soon as
    possible. It is blatantly unfair and has penalized deserving military
    survivors for years. A number of these military survivors are nearly
    impoverished because of this unfair provision. As with concurrent
    receipt for disabled retirees, military survivors should receive both
    SBP AND DIC. They have always been entitled to both and should not have
    to pay for their own DIC. The American Legion will continue to convey
    that simple, equitable justice is the primary reason to fund FULL
    concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and VA disability
    compensation, as well as the SBP and DIC for military survivors. Not to
    do so merely perpetuates the same inequity. Both inequities need to be
    righted by changing the unfair law that prohibits both groups from
    receiving both forms of compensation.
        Mr. Chairman, The American Legion as well as the Armed Forces and
    veterans continue to owe you and this subcommittee a debt of gratitude
    for your support of military quality of life issues. Nevertheless, your
    assistance is needed in this budget to overcome old and new threats to
    retaining and recruiting the finest military in the world.
    Servicemembers and their families continue to endure physical risks to
    their well-being and livelihood as well as the forfeiture of personal
    freedoms that most Americans would find unacceptable. Worldwide
    deployments have increased significantly and the Nation is at war. The
    very fact that over 300,000 Guardsmen and Reservists have been
    mobilized since September 11, 2001 is first-hand evidence that the
    United States Army desperately needs to increase its end-strengths and
    maintain those end-strengths so as to help facilitate the rotation of
    Active and Reserve component units to active combat zones.
        The American Legion congratulates and thanks congressional
    subcommittees such as this one for military and military retiree
    quality of life enhancements contained in past National Defense
    Appropriations Acts. Continued improvement however is direly needed to
    include the following:
      --Completely Closing the Military Pay Gap with the Private Sector.--
            With U.S. troops battling insurgency and terrorism in Iraq and
            Afghanistan, The American Legion supports a proposed 3.1
            percent military pay raise as well as increases in Basic
            Allowance for Housing (BAH).
      --Commissaries.--The American Legion urges the Congress to preserve
            full federal subsidizing of the military commissary system and
            to retain this vital non-pay compensation benefit for use by
            Active Duty families, Reservist families, military retiree
            families and 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans
            and others.
      --DOD Domestic Dependents Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS).--
            The American Legion urges the retention and full funding of the
            DDESS as they have provided a source of high quality education
            for military children attending schools on military
            installations.
      --Funding the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill for Education.
      --Providing FULL concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and VA
            disability compensation for those disabled retirees rated 40
            percent and less; providing non-phased concurrent receipt for
            those disabled retirees rated between 50 percent and 90 percent
            disabled by the VA; and authorizing those military disability
            retirees with fewer than 20 years service to receive both VA
            disability compensation and Combat-Related Special Compensation
            (CRSC).
      --Eliminating the offset of the survivors benefit plan (SBP) and
            Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for military
            survivors.

                       OTHER QUALITY OF LIFE INSTITUTIONS

        The American Legion strongly believes that quality of life issues
    for retired military members and their families are augmented by
    certain institutions which we believe need to be annually funded as
    well. Accordingly, The American Legion believes that Congress and the
    administration must place high priority on insuring these institutions
    are adequately funded and maintained:
      --The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.--The
            American Legion urges the Congress to resist any efforts to
            less than fully fund, downsize or close the USUHS through the
            BRAC process. It is a national treasure, which educates and
            produces military physicians and advanced nursing staffs. We
            believe it continues to be an economical source of CAREER
            medical leaders who enhance military health care readiness and
            excellence and is well-known for providing the finest health
            care in the world.
      --The Armed Forces Retirement Homes.--The United States Soldiers' and
            Airmen's Home in Washington, D.C. and the United States Naval
            Home in Gulfport, Mississippi, have been under-funded as
            evidenced by the reduction in services to include on-site
            medical health care and dental care. Increases in fees paid by
            residents are continually on the rise. The medical facility at
            the USSAH has been eliminated with residents being referred to
            VA Medical Centers or Military Treatment Facilities such as
            Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Naval Home at Gulfport,
            Mississippi was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, The American
            Legion recommends that the Congress conduct an independent
            assessment of the USSAH facilities and the services being
            provided with an eye toward federally subsidizing the Home as
            appropriate. The facility has been recognized as a national
            treasure until recent years when a number of mandated services
            had been severely reduced and resident fees have been
            substantially increased.
      --Arlington National Cemetery.--The American Legion urges that the
            Arlington National Cemetery be maintained to the highest of
            standards. We urge also that Congress mandate the eligibility
            requirements for burial in this prestigious Cemetery reserved
            for those who have performed distinguished military service and
            their spouses and eligible children.
      --2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission.--The American
            Legion was disappointed that certain base facilities such as
            military medical facilities, commissaries, exchanges and
            training facilities and other quality of life facilities were
            not preserved for use by the Active and Reserve components and
            military retirees and their families. We urge that Walter Reed
            Medical Center be rebuilt at the National Naval Medical Center
            and that the Fort Belvoir Medical Facility be expanded.
      --Finally, The American Legion urges that the Navy continue to
            maintain 12 aircraft carriers as the minimum essential.

                   THE AMERICAN LEGION FAMILY SUPPORT NETWORK

        The American Legion continues to demonstrate its support and
    commitment to the men and women in uniform and their families. The
    American Legion's Family Support Network is providing immediate
    assistance primarily to activated National Guard families as requested
    by the director of the National Guard Bureau. The American Legion
    Family Support Network has reached out through its departments and
    posts to also support the Army Wounded Warrior program (AW2). Many
    thousands of requests from these families have been received and
    accommodated by the American Legion Family across the United States.
    Military family needs have ranged from requests for funds to a variety
    of everyday chores which need doing while the ``man or woman'' of the
    family is gone. The American Legion, whose members have served our
    Nation in times of adversity, remember how it felt to be separated from
    family and loved ones. As a grateful Nation, we must ensure than no
    military family endures those hardships caused by military service, as
    such service has assured the security, freedom and ideals of our great
    country.

                                  CONCLUSIONS

        Thirty-three years ago, America opted for an all-volunteer force to
    provide for the national defense. Inherent in that commitment was a
    willingness to invest the needed resources to bring into existence and
    maintain a competent, professional and well-equipped military. The
    fiscal year 2007 defense budget, while recognizing the war on terrorism
    and homeland security, represents another good step in the right
    direction. Likewise our military retiree veterans and military
    survivors, who in yesteryear served this Nation for decades, continue
    to need your help as well.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is the Deputy Director of
    Government Relations of the National Military Family
    Association, Ms. Kathleen Moakler.

    STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN B. MOAKLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
                GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL MILITARY
                FAMILY ASSOCIATION
        Ms. Moakler. Thank you, Senator Inouye. The National
    Military Family Association (NMFA) would like to thank you and
    Chairman Stevens for the opportunity to present testimony to
    this subcommittee on quality of life issues affecting
    servicemembers and their families. We thank you for your
    continued focus on these issues.
        In our written testimony we discuss many issues of
    importance to military families. This morning I will highlight
    some of the most critical.
        Family member readiness is imperative for servicemember
    readiness. Family readiness requires the availability of
    coordinated, consistent family support provided by well-trained
    professionals and volunteers. Adequate child care, easily
    unavailable preventative mental health counseling, as well as
    therapeutic mental health care. Employment assistance for
    spouses, and youth programs that assist parents to effectively
    address the concerns of their children, especially during times
    of deployment.
        Paramount among these issues is the family's ability to
    access quality health care in a timely manner and at a cost
    that is commensurate with the sacrifices made by both
    servicemembers and families.
        This year, with the proposal by DOD to raise TRICARE fees
    by exorbitant amounts, families are concerned. They see the
    proposal as an effort to change an earned entitlement to health
    care into an insurance plan. We appreciate congressional
    recognition that more study is needed before increases are
    imposed. NMFA is most concerned however about the $735 million
    shortfall that will exist because DOD deducted this from the
    budget proposal in anticipation of fee increases. NMFA urgently
    requests that this amount be reinstated to maintain quality
    health care for our servicemembers and their families.
        As the length and danger of deployments increase, there is
    a greater need for confidential preventative mental health
    services. NMFA believes that Government-provided access to
    appropriate services for both servicemembers and their families
    need to be available for the long term.
        In 2005, NMFA received almost 1,600 responses to its web
    survey on the cycles of deployment. The message from military
    families came through loud and clear: Families cannot, nor
    should they have to make it through a deployment alone. Though
    much has been done to improve existing deployment support
    programs and develop new initiatives, deployment support
    requires consistent funding, training of family readiness
    support volunteers, and information and support provided across
    the board. Military Onesource, DOD's virtual assistance
    program, continues to be an excellent resource for military
    families. NMFA is pleased that DOD has committed to funding the
    counseling provided under the Onesource contract, and
    appreciates congressional support for this program.
        NMFA recently asked military service family program
    personnel what they needed to meet the challenges their
    families faced. Each identified unfunded requirements within
    their service budgets, and requested additional dedicated
    resources for family readiness. Common in all requests was the
    need for additional funding to improve outreach and support to
    Active duty, National Guard, and Reserve families, through
    programs and increased staff, enhanced counseling services and
    resources, the ability to make childcare more available, and
    the ability to provide additional support for volunteers.
        NMFA asks Congress to provide the services with sufficient
    resources to sustain robust quality of life and family support
    programs through the entire deployment cycle, and recommends
    that at least $20 million be allocated to the individual
    military service, operations, and maintenance accounts to be
    directed toward these programs, with more dedicated to services
    bearing the largest deployment burden.
        Thank you for your kind attention this morning, and I'm
    ready to answer any questions you may have.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much. How large is your
    membership?
        Ms. Moakler. We represent all military family members,
    whether they are members of our organization or not.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Moakler. You're welcome.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Kathleen B. Moakler

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this subcommittee, the
    National Military Family Association (NMFA) would like to thank you for
    the opportunity to present testimony on quality of life issues
    affecting servicemembers and their families. Once again, we thank you
    for your focus on many of the elements of the quality of life package
    for servicemembers and their families: housing, health care, family
    support, and education.

                                FAMILY READINESS

        Servicemember readiness is imperative for mission readiness. Family
    readiness is imperative for servicemember readiness. Family readiness
    requires the availability of coordinated, consistent family support
    provided by well trained professionals and volunteers; adequate child
    care; easily available preventative mental health counseling as well as
    therapeutic mental health care; employment assistance for spouses, and
    youth programs that assist parents to more effectively address the
    concerns of their children, particularly during stressful times.
    However, no one issue is more important to family readiness than the
    family's ability to access quality health care in a timely manner and
    at a cost that is commensurate with the sacrifices made by both
    servicemembers and families.
    Health Care
        NMFA thanks this subcommittee for continued funding to provide for
    a robust military health care system. This system must continue to meet
    the needs of servicemembers and the Department of Defense (DOD) in
    times of armed conflict. It must also acknowledge that military members
    and their families are indeed a unique population with unique duties,
    who earn an entitlement to a unique health care program.
        The proposal by DOD to raise TRICARE fees by exorbitant amounts has
    resonated throughout the beneficiary population. Beneficiaries see the
    proposal as a concentrated effort by DOD to change their earned
    entitlement to health care into an insurance plan. NMFA appreciates the
    concern shown by Members of Congress since the release of DOD's
    proposals regarding the need for more information about the budget
    assumptions used to create the proposals, the effects of possible
    increases on beneficiary behavior, the need for DOD to implement
    greater efficiencies in the Defense Health Care Program (DHP), and the
    adequacy of the DHP budget as proposed by DOD. We appreciate the many
    questions Members of Congress are asking about these proposals and urge
    Congress to continue its oversight responsibilities on these issues.
        NMFA believes DOD has many options available to make the military
    health system more efficient and thus make the need for large increases
    in beneficiary cost shares unnecessary. We encourage DOD to investigate
    cost saving measures such as: a systemic approach to disease
    management, a concentrated marketing campaign to increase use of the
    TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy, eliminating contract redundancies,
    delaying the recompetition of the TRICARE contracts, speeding
    implementation of the Uniform Formulary process, and optimizing
    military treatment facilities.
        NMFA is especially concerned about DOD's proposal to create a
    TRICARE Standard enrollment fee. The precursor to TRICARE Standard, the
    basic benefit provided for care in the civilian sector, was CHAMPUS,
    which was then, as TRICARE Standard is now, an extension of the earned
    entitlement to health care. Charging a premium (enrollment fee) for
    TRICARE Standard moves the benefit from an earned entitlement to an
    opportunity to buy into an insurance plan. Also, because TRICARE Prime
    is not offered everywhere, Standard is the only option for many
    retirees and their families and survivors who need to access their
    military health care benefit.
        In the current debate about whether or not to raise beneficiary
    fees for TRICARE, NMFA believes it is important to understand the
    difference between TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Standard and to
    distinguish between creating a TRICARE Standard enrollment fee and
    raising the Standard deductible amount. TRICARE Prime has an enrollment
    fee for military retirees; however, it offers enhancements to the
    health care benefit: lower out-of-pocket costs, access to care within
    prescribed standards, additional preventive care, assistance in finding
    providers, and the management of one's health care. In other words,
    enrollment fees for Prime are not to access the earned entitlement, but
    for additional services. These fees, which have not changed since the
    start of TRICARE, are $230 per year for an individual and $460 per year
    for a family.
        DOD's proposal to increase TRICARE Prime enrollment fees, while
    completely out-of-line dollar wise, is not unexpected. In fact, NMFA
    was surprised DOD did not include an increase as it implemented the new
    round of TRICARE contracts last year. NMFA does have concerns about the
    amount of DOD's proposed increases for TRICARE Prime and the plan to
    impose a tiered system of enrollment fees and TRICARE Standard
    deductibles. We believe the tiered system is arbitrarily devised and
    fails to acknowledge the needs of the most vulnerable beneficiaries:
    survivors and wounded servicemembers.
        Acknowledging that the annual Prime enrollment fee has not
    increased in more than 10 years and that it may be reasonable to have a
    mechanism to increase fees, NMFA has presented an alternative to DOD's
    proposal should Congress deem some cost increase necessary. NMFA
    suggests DOD apply the cumulative retiree cost of living adjustment
    (COLA) to the base annual Prime enrollment fee of $230 for an
    individual and $460 for a family. Using the 31.4 percent cumulative
    COLA for the years from 1995 through 2006, the annual fee would rise to
    approximately $302 for a single retiree and $604 for a family. If DOD
    thought $230/$460 was a fair fee for all in 1995, then it would appear
    that raising the fees simply by the percentage increase in retiree pay
    since then is also fair. NMFA also suggests that, to avoid another
    ``sticker shock,'' fees be raised annually by the same percent as the
    retiree COLA. NMFA further believes adjusting the current fees over a
    2-year period would decrease the effect of ``sticker shock'' and allow
    families to adjust their budgets. We are aware the current system does
    require retirees/survivors with smaller incomes to pay a higher
    percentage of their pension/annuity for Prime than those with higher
    incomes; however, we believe the benefits of simply updating the
    current fees are greater for almost all concerned than devising another
    option, especially an arbitrarily-designed tier system. NMFA also
    suggests it would be reasonable to adjust the TRICARE Standard
    deductibles in the same manner: cumulative COLA for the years since
    1995 and then tie future increases to the percent of the retiree annual
    COLA.
        NMFA applauds DOD's proposal to encourage migration to the TRICARE
    Mail Order Pharmacy (TMOP) by removing cost shares for generic
    medications. NMFA and other associations have long encouraged DOD to
    launch a concentrated marketing effort to promote use of the TMOP, as
    it provides significant savings to beneficiaries as well as huge
    savings to the Department. The proposed beneficiary cost share
    increases in the pharmacy retail network program (TRRx) are not as
    exorbitant as the proposals for increases in Prime enrollment fees, the
    premium to access TRICARE Standard, or the increase in Standard
    deductibles, but do represent a 67 percent increase for all
    beneficiaries. If some additional cost share for TRRx is instituted,
    NMFA believes it should not be implemented until all of the medications
    available through TRRx are also available through TMOP and DOD joins
    the associations in actively and strongly promoting use of the TMOP.
        It is imperative that adequate funding be restored to the Defense
    Health Budget should Congress reject TRICARE fee increases for this
    year. Based on beneficiary input--most recently in an NMFA web survey
    completed by approximately 600 respondents--NMFA believes the military
    health system is operating close to the financial edge and that the
    strains of meeting the military mission and providing care to active
    duty families, military retirees, their families, and survivors are
    taking a toll on the system, especially in the direct care system.
    Beneficiaries repeatedly tell NMFA of difficulties in obtaining timely
    appointments and that prescribed access standards are not being met for
    enrolled TRICARE Prime beneficiaries at military treatment facilities
    (MTFs). No one is more cognizant of the need for superior health care
    to be provided to servicemembers in harm's way than their families. In
    addition, no one is more willing to change providers or venues of care
    to accommodate the need for military health care providers to deploy
    than the families of those deployed. However, a contract was made with
    those who enrolled in Prime. Beneficiaries must seek care in the manner
    prescribed in the Prime agreement, but in return they are given what
    are supposed to be guaranteed access standards.
        MTFs must have the resources and the encouragement to ensure their
    facilities are optimized to care for the most beneficiaries possible
    and must be held accountable for meeting stated access standards. If
    funding or personnel resource issues are the reason access standards
    are not being met, then assistance must be provided to ensure MTFs are
    able to meet access standards, support the military mission, and
    continue to provide quality health care. NMFA urgently requests that
    the $735 million deducted by DOD from the budget proposal for the
    Defense Health Program to reflect its savings due to increased TRICARE
    fees be reinstated.
        As servicemembers and families experience numerous lengthy and
    dangerous deployments, NMFA believes the need for confidential,
    preventative mental health services will continue to rise. The Services
    must balance the demand for mental health personnel in theater and at
    home to help servicemembers and families deal with unique emotional
    challenges and stresses related to the nature and duration of continued
    deployments. NMFA remains concerned about access to mental health care,
    both preventative and therapeutic, for the long haul. Unfortunately the
    costs of war may linger for servicemembers and their families for many
    years. It is imperative that whether or not the member remains on
    active duty and entitled to military health care there are provisions
    for both servicemembers and their families to access appropriate mental
    health services paid for by their government.
    Caring for Military Children and Youth
        Frequent deployments and long work hours make the need for quality
    affordable and accessible child care critical. We thank Congress for
    making additional funding available for child care since the beginning
    of the global war on terror. Currently, DOD estimates it has a shortage
    of 31,000 child care spaces within the system, not counting the demand
    from the mobilized Guard and Reserve community. While efforts are being
    made to bridge this gap, thanks in part to congressional funding for
    child care over the past few years, innovative new strategies are
    needed--sooner rather than later. We congratulate the Navy for the
    incredible 24-hour centers they have opened in Norfolk and Hawaii.
    These centers provide a home-like atmosphere for children of sailors
    working late night or varying shifts. More of these centers are needed,
    but they need to be funded at a level that enables them to provide the
    same quality of care as the standard the Navy has established in its
    first two centers. Providing high quality, after-hours care for service
    members working long hours in support of the mission is a cost of that
    mission.
        Families continually tell NMFA that respite and drop-in care is in
    critically short supply worldwide. Families who cannot access military
    child development centers or family child care providers talk about the
    expense and difficulty they face in finding quality, affordable care.
    Programs such as Military Child Care in Your Neighborhood and Operation
    Military Child Care, which assist military families in finding and
    paying for child care, are welcome pieces of the solution, but are
    insufficient to completely meet the needs of our families.
        Older children and teens cannot be overlooked. Schools want to be
    educated on issues affecting military students. Teachers and
    administrators want to be sensitive to the needs of military children.
    To achieve this goal they need tools. Parents are the primary advocates
    for their children and they also want the resources to help them
    accomplish this task. NMFA is working to meet this need through
    programs such as our Operation Purple summer camps and a pilot after
    school program for children of deployed servicemembers.
        Schools serving military children, whether DOD or civilian schools,
    need the resources to meet military parents' expectation that their
    children receive the highest quality education possible. Because Impact
    Aid funding from the Department of Education is not fully funded and
    has remained flat in recent years, NMFA recommends increasing the DOD
    supplement to Impact Aid to $50 million to help districts better meet
    the additional demands caused by large numbers of military children,
    deployment-related issues, and the effects of military programs and
    policies such as family housing privatization. Initiatives to assist
    parents and to promote better communication between installations and
    schools should be expanded across all Services.
    Spouse Employment
        DOD has sponsored a variety of programs, including a partnership
    with Monster.com, to promote spouse employment. Spouses can also
    receive career counseling through Military OneSource. However, with
    700,000 active duty spouses, the task of enhancing military spouse
    employment is too big for DOD to handle alone. Improvements in
    employment for military spouses and assistance in supporting their
    career progression will require increased partnerships and initiatives
    by a variety of government agencies and private employers. NMFA was
    concerned by recent press reports chronicling the end of a Department
    of Labor grant program that provided employment assistance to military
    spouses at several installations across the United States. We urge
    Congress to ensure funds are available to assist the military Services
    in initiatives to encourage more private employers to step up to the
    plate and form partnerships supporting military spouse employment and
    career progression. We encourage DOD to reach out to potential
    employers and acquaint them with the merits of hiring members of this
    talented and motivated work force. DOD must also encourage military
    spouses to use all available resources to educate themselves about
    factors to consider regarding employment benefits, to include
    investments, health care, portability and retirement.
    What's Needed for Family Readiness?
        NMFA recognizes and appreciates the continued focus that all the
    Services are placing on the issue of family readiness. In particular,
    the increased access to information for family members has had a
    tremendous positive impact on their ability to sustain ``normal'' lives
    while dealing with the issues that arise in military life. There is,
    however, still much to be done. DOD must continue to refine and improve
    family readiness programs not only because it is the right thing to do,
    but also to retain highly trained and qualified servicemembers.
        NMFA has found Military OneSource, DOD's virtual assistance
    program, to be an excellent resource for military families. OneSource
    provides 24/7 access to counselors and information through the web
    (www.militaryonesource.com) and toll-free phone number. Because it is
    available 24/7, families do not have to wait for the installation
    family center to open or for someone to return a call. It also helps
    returning servicemembers and families access local community resources
    and receive up to six free face-to-face mental health visits with a
    professional outside the chain of command. NMFA is pleased DOD has
    committed to funding the counseling provided under the OneSource
    contract and appreciates congressional support for this program. This
    counseling is not medical mental health counseling, but rather
    assistance for family members in dealing with the stresses of
    deployment or reunion. It can be an important preventative to forestall
    more serious problems down the road.

                            FAMILIES AND DEPLOYMENT

        From April through November, 2005, NMFA received 1,592 responses to
    its web survey on the Cycles of Deployment. The message from military
    families came through loud and clear: families cannot, nor should they
    have to, make it through a deployment alone. They expect family support
    to be available to all military families, regardless of their Service
    component or where the family lives. Respondents acknowledged they had
    a role to play in their own family readiness; however they looked to
    their commands, their unit volunteers, and their communities to
    recognize their sacrifice and help them make it through a deployment.
        NMFA could not agree more. Although much has been done to improve
    existing deployment support programs and develop new initiatives to
    meet emerging needs, deployment support requires consistent funding,
    training of family readiness/support volunteers, and information and
    support provided across installations, services, and components.
    Deployment support programs must also have the potential to be
    ``purple.'' According to our survey respondents, ``The Military'' has
    established an expectation that the uniformed services are family
    friendly. Families assume all the support systems should work together.
    They do not know (and do not really care) who is in charge of what, who
    is paid or not. How far the family lives from the unit does not really
    matter, nor do service or component distinctions. What does matter is
    that the promised support and information are provided.
        The Services are making strides in providing more staffing--whether
    uniformed or civilian--to support the logistics of family support, but
    NMFA believes they must have additional resources to meet ongoing
    deployment needs and be ready to meet emerging ones. NMFA recently
    asked family readiness professionals from each Service what they needed
    to meet the challenges their families faced. In addition to initiatives
    funded at the Defense-wide level, each identified unfunded requirements
    within their Service budgets and requested additional dedicated
    resources for family readiness in their individual Service Operations
    and Maintenance accounts. Common in all requests was the need for
    additional funding to improve outreach, communication, and support to
    Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve families; increase the
    availability of counseling resources; make child care services more
    available; and provide additional support for volunteers.
        Higher stress levels caused by open-ended and multiple deployments
    require a higher level of community support. We ask Congress to provide
    the Services with sufficient resources to sustain robust quality of
    life and family support programs during the entire deployment cycle:
    pre-deployment, deployment, post-deployment, and in that critical
    period between deployments. To ensure a solid, but by no means gold-
    plated family readiness program to support families throughout this
    cycle, NMFA recommends additional funding be provided in the individual
    military Service Operations and Maintenance accounts to be directed
    toward enhancing family support initiatives such as outreach,
    counseling, aligning Guard and Reserve support programs with their
    active counterparts, child care, and providing assistance and training
    for family support volunteers. NMFA recommends that at least $20
    million be allocated to each Service Operations and Maintenance
    account, with more dedicated to Services bearing the largest deployment
    burden.

                            FAMILIES AND TRANSITION

        Transitions are part of the military life. For the individual
    military family, transitions start with the servicemember's entrance in
    the military and last through changes in duty station until the
    servicemember's separation or retirement from the service. Another
    transition comes with the injury or death of the servicemember.
    National Guard and Reserve families face a transition with each call-up
    and demobilization of the member. The transition to a restructured
    military under Service transformation initiatives, Global Rebasing, and
    Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) will affect servicemembers, their
    families, and their communities.
    Transformation, Global Rebasing, and BRAC
        As the Global Rebasing and the BRAC process are implemented,
    military families look to Congress to ensure key quality of life
    benefits and programs remain accessible. Members of the military
    community, especially retirees, are concerned about the impact base
    closures will have on their access to health care and the commissary,
    exchange, and MWR benefits they have earned. They are concerned that
    the size of the retiree, survivor, Guard, and Reserve populations
    remaining in a location will not be considered in decisions about
    whether or not to keep commissaries and exchanges open. In the case of
    shifts in troop populations because of Service transformation
    initiatives, such as Army modularity and changes in Navy home ports, or
    the return of servicemembers and families from overseas bases,
    community members at receiving installations are concerned that
    existing facilities and programs may be overwhelmed by the increased
    populations.
        Quality of life issues that affect servicemembers and families must
    be considered on an equal basis with other mission-related tasks in any
    plan to move troops or to close or realign installations. Maintaining
    this infrastructure cannot be done as an afterthought. Ensuring the
    availability of quality of life programs, services, and facilities at
    both closing and receiving installations, and easing servicemembers and
    families' transition from one to another, will take additional funding
    and personnel. NMFA looks to Congress to ensure that DOD has programmed
    for costs of family support and quality of life as part of its base
    realignment and closure calculations from the beginning and receives
    the resources it needs. DOD cannot just program for costs of a new
    runway or tank maintenance facility. It must also program in the cost
    of a new child development center or new school, if needed.
        NMFA cannot emphasize enough the urgency for DOD and Congress to
    allocate resources now to support communities involved in movements of
    large numbers of troops. The world in which the American overseas
    downsizing occurred a decade ago no longer exists. Troop movements and
    installation closings and realignments today occur against the backdrop
    of the ongoing war on terror and a heavy deployment schedule. The
    military of today is more dependent on contractors and civilian
    agencies to perform many of the functions formerly performed by
    uniformed military members. Changes in the military health care system
    and the construction and operation of military family housing will have
    an impact on the ability of an installation to absorb large numbers of
    servicemembers and families returning from overseas. Increased
    visibility of issues such as the smooth transition of military children
    from one school to another and a military spouse's ability to pursue a
    career means that more family members will expect their leadership to
    provide additional support in these areas.
        We thank Congress for providing funds to assist schools in meeting
    the additional costs that come with the arrival of large numbers of
    military students. We believe this DOD funding--$7 million appropriated
    for this year--will be needed in larger amounts for several years until
    districts are able to secure resources from other Federal, State or
    local resources. We want these districts to welcome military children
    and not blame them for cutbacks in services because the schools could
    not receive DOD funds to assist them in supporting these children.
        NMFA looks to Congress to ensure DOD's plans for these troop shifts
    will maintain access to quality of life programs and support facilities
    until the last servicemember and family leaves installations to be
    closed. In the same manner, we ask you to ensure that housing, schools,
    child development and youth programs, and community services are in
    place to accommodate the surge of families a community can expect to
    receive as a result of the movement of troops to a new location.
    Survivors
        We believe the obligation as articulated by President Lincoln, ``.
    . . to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow
    and his orphan,'' is as valid today as it was at the end of the Civil
    War. NMFA appreciates the work done this year by DOD and Services to
    improve the education of casualty assistance officers and to make sure
    survivors are receiving accurate information in a timely manner. While
    we still hear from some widows that they received wrong or incomplete
    information from their casualty assistance officer, these problems are
    quickly resolved when surfaced to the higher headquarters. We are
    concerned, however, about the widows or parents who still do not know
    who to call when there is a problem.
        A new DOD publication is now available on the DOD Military
    Homefront website (www.militaryhomefront.DOD.mil) for each surviving
    spouse and/or parent outlining the benefits available to them. This on-
    line document can be easily updated as changes occur. It will be
    supplemented by Service-specific information. NMFA also looks forward
    to the results of the GAO study on the casualty notification and
    assistance process.
        NMFA believes the benefit change that will provide the most
    significant long term advantage to the surviving family's financial
    security would be to end the Dependency Indemnity Compensation (DIC)
    offset to the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). DIC is a special indemnity
    (compensation or insurance) payment that is paid by the Department of
    Veterans Affairs (VA) to the survivor when the servicemember's service
    causes his or her death. It is a flat rate monthly payment of $1,033
    for the surviving spouse and $257 for each surviving child. The SPB
    annuity, paid by the Department of Defense (DOD) reflects the longevity
    of the service of the military member. It is ordinarily calculated at
    55 percent of retired pay. Those who give their lives for their country
    deserve more fair compensation for their surviving spouses. NMFA urges
    Congress to authorize legislation to eliminate the offset and to
    provide funding necessary to implement such legislation.
    Wounded Service Members Have Wounded Families
        Post-deployment transitions could be especially problematic for
    injured servicemembers and their families. NMFA asserts that behind
    every wounded servicemember is a wounded family. Spouses, children,
    parents, and siblings of service members injured defending our country
    experience many uncertainties. Fear of the unknown and what lies ahead
    in future weeks, months, and even years, weighs heavily on their minds.
    Other concerns include the injured servicemember's return and reunion
    with their family, financial stresses, and navigating the transition
    process to the VA. When designing support for the wounded/injured in
    today's conflict, the government, especially the VA, must take a more
    inclusive view of military families. Those who have the responsibility
    to care for the wounded servicemember must also consider the needs of
    the spouse, children, and the parents and siblings of single
    servicemembers.

                           COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

        NMFA appreciates the pay raises for servicemembers over the past
    several years. They serve as both an acknowledgement of service and
    recognition of the need for financial incentives as a retention tool.
    As DOD prepares its Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, NMFA
    hopes that Congress, in evaluating its recommendations, considers the
    effects of those recommendations on the whole pay and compensation
    package. Changes in individual elements of that package can have
    unintended consequences on other elements or on the package as a whole.
    And, while pay raises are important, equally important is the need to
    maintain the non-pay benefit package that makes up such a vital part of
    military compensation.
    Funding for Commissaries, MWR and Other Programs
        Commissaries, exchanges, recreational facilities and other Morale,
    Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs are an integral part of military
    life and enhance the overall quality of life for servicemembers and
    their families. Respondents to NMFA's recent survey on military
    benefits spoke emphatically about the value of commissaries, exchanges,
    and MWR programs. This spring, as in previous years, NMFA has been
    dismayed to hear from families and installation leaders that
    installations are being forced to cut MWR services, reduce child
    development center hours, and limit access to facilities because of the
    shortage of base operating funds. At high deployment installations,
    just when families needed them the most, they are routinely being asked
    to do without. Commanders should not have to make a choice between
    paying the installation utility bills or providing family support
    services. While we understand the Services have obligated additional
    funds to installation operations accounts, we still hear from families
    that some services are being cut back or that these accounts are being
    funded at less than 100 percent of the need. We urge increased funding
    for installation operations so that valuable support programs remain
    available to communities undergoing the multiple stresses of deployment
    and high operations tempo at home.

                             FAMILIES AND COMMUNITY

        Military families are members of many communities. NMFA has heard
    how these communities want to help the uniformed service families in
    their midst. As the sacrifice of servicemembers and families continue
    in the global war on terror, many States have implemented military
    family friendly programs and passed legislation to support families.
    NMFA applauds the States assisting servicemembers and their families
    with in-State tuition, unemployment compensation for spouses, licensing
    reciprocity, and education and sports provisions for military children.
    The DOD State Liaison office works to promote these policies and
    publicizes them on the DOD website USA4MilitaryFamilies.org, a web
    forum for sharing information about State and local initiatives to
    support military families.
        Concern for deployed servicemembers from North Carolina, and
    compassion for their loved ones left behind, prompted the creation of a
    unique partnership to help the combatants' families, particularly those
    in remote areas. The Citizen-Soldier Support Program (CSSP) is a
    collaborative effort, funded by Congress through a DOD grant, and
    coordinated by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. CSSP is
    designed to mobilize communities and make them aware of the needs of
    local military families so people can reach out and help when help is
    needed. The program is designed as a preventative measure, as opposed
    to a crisis-response structure, to help with little things before they
    become big things. The support program uses existing agencies within
    counties and communities to broadcast the needs of military families.
    Other States have expressed interest in starting similar programs. We
    hope North Carolina will be the training center to expand the program
    to other States and communities.
        NMFA recommends increased funding for community-based programs,
    including the North Carolina Citizen-Soldier Support Program, to reach
    out to meet the needs of geographically dispersed servicemembers and
    their families.
        NMFA would like to thank these military community members,
    especially the community organizations, schools, youth groups,
    fraternal and service groups, and churches, who reach out the military
    families in their midst and offer them support, a hug, a listener, a
    lawn mowed, a tire changed. They too are part of the tapestry of
    support. By keeping military families strong, they are ensuring the
    force will remain strong.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Brigadier General
    Stephen Koper, retired, President of the National Guard
    Association of the United States. General Koper, welcome, sir.

    STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN KOPER, UNITED
                STATES NATIONAL GUARD (RETIRED), PRESIDENT,
                NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED
                STATES
        General Koper. Thank you, Senator Inouye, and thanks to
    you, Chairman Stevens, and members of the subcommittee for the
    opportunity to testify before you again today. The National
    Guard Association thanks you for your many years of outstanding
    support to the National Guard.
        I want to share with you a couple of critical resources so
    necessary for the National Guard to carry out its growing role
    in the Nation's defense. It comes as no surprise to this
    subcommittee that these items are holdovers from our testimony
    1 year ago.
        While we are encouraged by the establishment of TRICARE
    Reserve Select 2 years ago, a program where members earn
    medical coverage through deployments, and then the addition of
    a tiered system which provides for two more categories of
    health care coverage for the Guard and Reserve, we do not
    believe it offers the final answer. More importantly, we have
    created a system of haves and have-nots within the Guard and
    Reserve, each category of member having a level of merit for
    health care coverage as reflected by a higher or lower premium
    rate.
        This is the sixth year that our association has brought the
    health care issue before you. We appreciate the efforts made
    here on the Hill to provide for our soldiers and airmen, and we
    hope that you will join with the House in providing language
    that would bring us to a simple one level of premium program
    for all members of the Guard and Reserve who are members of
    drilling units.
        Another issue of serious concern is full-time manning for
    the Army National Guard. While already engaged in conflicts
    worldwide, the Army National Guard continues to prepare for
    future missions. The vision of a more responsive force capable
    of full spectrum dominance to meet threats whenever and
    wherever they arise is a reality for the National Guard. The
    National Guard Association has worked with Congress to effect
    an Army National Guard full-time manning ramp to 71 percent
    over a 10-year period by 2012.
        The United States Army validated the ramp and began funding
    in fiscal year 2003, and has continued funding this requirement
    through fiscal year 2006.
        The National Guard Association believes there is a
    requirement to reach the 71 percent of full-time manning level
    by 2010, versus the target of 2012. The full-time manning issue
    will bear even closer scrutiny as the Army National Guard
    continues to transform, modularize, and reset. No matter what
    final decisions are made on Guard end strength and force
    structure, the availability of full-time manning is paramount
    to the Guard's continued success.
        I want to turn now to a concern that goes to the very heart
    of the National Guard. Bold and innovative Members of the
    Senate and the House and have recently introduced Senate 2658
    and its companion, H.R. 5200, the National Defense Enhancement
    and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006. This legislation
    offers solution to the institutional bias within the Active
    components that has plagued the National Guard, or militia,
    since the birth of the Republic. In our view, this situation
    can no longer be swept under the rug. We must do all that we
    can to provide the American people the most cost-effective
    defense structure. Certainly we believe that structure in many
    cases is the National Guard.
        The Department of Defense announced this week its
    opposition to all sections of S. 2658, and launched a campaign
    in Congress to either delay consideration of the legislation by
    referring it to the Commission on the National Guard and
    Reserve, or to dismiss the bill completely on the grounds that
    neither the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, nor the Secretary of
    Defense, believe the changes are either necessary or warranted.
        Unfortunately, this same dismissive response to the Guard
    reaching out to be heard as strategic level force structure,
    policy, and funding decisions are being made, is the very
    reason this legislation is needed. Senior Pentagon officials
    will openly tell you that the Guard has been and is at the
    table, and that except for a few isolated incidences, their
    inputs are being regularly factored into decisionmaking.
        If that were true, then why wasn't the Guard in the huddle
    for the Quadrennial Defense Review, and other high-level budget
    debates that ultimately led to proposed cuts of 17,000
    personnel in the Army Guard, and 14,000 less in the Air
    National Guard? The fact of the matter is that senior Guard
    leadership has only been involved in Pentagon decisionmaking as
    an afterthought, requiring the Adjutants General, Governors,
    Congress, this association, and others, to launch vigorous
    campaigns to reverse decisions that were made without adequate
    Guard input. Action by the Senate was necessary to remind the
    Army of this very fact earlier this year.
        The Guard's only goal is to have a seat at the table, and a
    relative voice in the decisions that affect our readiness.
    Based on the Pentagon's standard response to these entreaties,
    we now have the National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 as a
    means to achieve the level of Defense Department involvement we
    have earned and deserve.
        In closing, NGAUS would ask that this subcommittee lend its
    full support to favorable consideration of S. 2658. While the
    Secretary of Defense is wont to say the war on terror could not
    be fought without the National Guard, clearly a serious
    disconnect still exists. Senator Inouye, our thanks to you and
    Chairman Stevens and the subcommittee, for the opportunity.
    I'll be glad to answer any questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Stephen M. Koper

        Chairman Stevens, Members of the committee, thank you for this
    opportunity to testify before you again today and the National Guard
    Association thanks you for your many years of outstanding support to
    the National Guard.
        I want to share with you a couple of those critical resources so
    necessary for the National Guard to carry out its growing role in the
    Nation's defense. It comes as no surprise to this committee that these
    items are hold-overs from our testimony 1 year ago.
        At the top of that list of resources is access to health care. The
    National Guard Association believes every member of the National Guard
    should have the ability to access TRICARE coverage, on a reasonable
    cost-share basis, regardless of duty status.
        While we are encouraged by the establishment of TRICARE Reserve
    Select 2 years ago, a program where members ``earn'' medical coverage
    through deployments, and the addition of the ``tiered system'' which
    provides for two more categories of health care coverage for the Guard
    and Reserve, we don't believe it offers the final answer. More
    importantly, we have created a system of haves and have-nots within the
    Guard and Reserve, each category of member having a level of merit for
    health care coverage as reflected by a higher or lower premium rate.
        This is the sixth year that our association has brought the health
    care issue before you. We appreciate the efforts made here on the Hill
    to provide for our soldiers and airmen. From the beginning we have felt
    that there were some underlying justifications for our health care
    proposal:
      --Healthcare coverage for our members is a readiness issue. Guard
            members called to duty are expected to be ``ready for duty''.
      --TRICARE coverage for all would finally end the turbulence visited
            on soldiers and their families who are forced to transition
            from one health care coverage to another each time they answer
            the Nation's call.
      --Access to TRICARE would also be a strong recruitment and retention
            incentive. In an increasingly challenging recruiting/retention
            environment, TRICARE could make a significant difference.
        Currently TRICARE language to accompany H.R. 5122 (NDAA) is in
    place. This section would provide coverage under the TRICARE Standard
    program to all members of the Selected Reserves and their families
    while in a non-active duty status. Participants would be required to
    pay a premium that would be 28 percent of the total amount determined
    by the Secretary of Defense as being reasonable for the TRICARE
    coverage. Further, it would repeal the three tiered cost share TRICARE
    program for reserves established by the fiscal year 2006 National
    Defense Authorization Act. We believe this is the appropriate solution.
    We are seeking similar language from the long-time TRICARE stalwarts
    here in the Senate. We earnestly request this committee's support for
    such action.
        Another issue of serious concern is full time manning for the Army
    National Guard. While already engaged in conflicts worldwide, the Army
    National Guard continues to prepare for future missions. The vision of
    a more responsive force capable of full-spectrum dominance to meet
    threats whenever and wherever they arise is a reality for the National
    Guard.
        The National Guard Association of the United States has worked with
    Congress to affect an Army National Guard full-time manning ramp to 71
    percent over a 10-year period (by 2012). The United States Army
    validated the ramp and began its funding in fiscal year 2003 and has
    continued funding this requirement through fiscal year 2006. The
    National Guard Association of the United States believes there is a
    requirement to reach the 71 percent full-time manning level by 2010
    versus the current target of 2012.
        The full-time manning issue will bear close scrutiny as the Army
    National Guard continues to transform, modularize and reset. No matter
    what final decisions are made on Guard end strength and force
    structure, the availability of full-time manning is paramount to the
    Guard's continued success.
        This committee has always been particularly sensitive to the
    equipment needs of the National Guard and generous in funding the
    National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA). Mr. Chairman,
    each and every dollar that has been appropriated over the years in this
    account has purchased combat capability. This account is absolutely
    essential to both the Army and Air National Guard and we thank you for
    your continued support of NGREA.
        I want to turn now to a concern that goes to the very heart of the
    National Guard. Bold and innovative Members of the Senate and House
    have recently introduced S. 2658 and its companion H.R. 5200, The
    National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of
    2006. This legislation offers solutions to the institutional bias
    within the active components that has plagued the National Guard
    (militia) since the birth of the Republic. In our view, this situation
    can no longer be swept under the rug. We must do all that we can to
    provide the American people with the most cost effective defense
    structure. Certainly we believe that structure, in many cases, is the
    National Guard.
        The Department of Defense announced this week its opposition to all
    sections of S. 2658 and launched a campaign in Congress to either delay
    consideration of the legislation by referring it to the Commission on
    the National Guard and Reserves or dismiss the bill completely on the
    grounds that neither the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or Secretary of
    Defense believes the changes are either necessary or warranted.
        Unfortunately, this same dismissive response to the Guard reaching
    out to be heard as strategic level force structure, policy, and funding
    decisions are being made is the very reason this legislation is needed.
    Senior Pentagon officials will openly tell you that the Guard has been
    and is ``at the table'' and that except for a few isolated incidences,
    their inputs are being regularly factored into strategic
    decisionmaking. If that were true, then why wasn't the Guard ``in the
    huddle'' for the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and other high level
    budget debates that ultimately led to proposed cuts of 17,000 personnel
    in the Army National Guard and 14,000 less in the Air National Guard.
        The fact of the matter is that senior Guard leadership has only
    been involved in Pentagon decisionmaking as an afterthought, requiring
    the adjutant's general, governors, Congress and NGAUS to launch
    vigorous campaigns to reverse decisions that were made without adequate
    Guard input. Action by the Senate was necessary to remind the Army of
    this very fact earlier this year.
        The Guard's only goal is to have a seat at the table and a relative
    voice in the decisions that affect our readiness. Based on the
    Pentagon's standard response to these entreaties, we now have the
    National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 as a means to achieve that level
    of Defense Department involvement we have earned and deserve.
        In closing, NGAUS would ask that this committee lend its full
    support to favorable consideration of S. 2658. While the Secretary of
    Defense is wont to say, ``The War on Terror could not be fought without
    the National Guard'', clearly a serious disconnect still exists.
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee, I sincerely thank you for
    your time today and am happy to answer any questions.

        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, General. What are
    the latest statistics relating to recruiting and retention in
    the Army National Guard?
        General Koper. The Army National Guard recruiting slope is
    definitely strongly up. We did suffer a minor setback in April.
    However, we believe, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau has
    said in testimony, he believes they will meet the 350,000
    authorized strength by the end of the fiscal year. They have a
    tremendously innovative Guard Recruiting Assistant Program (G-
    RAP) recruiting program that is doing wonders. Individual
    guardsmen are bringing other recruits in and receiving bonuses
    for that, and true to the American spirit, they are great
    marketeers. They are doing a pretty fantastic job.
        Senator Inouye. That is encouraging. Thank you very much,
    sir.
        General Koper. Thank you, sir.

                        ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS

        Senator Inouye. That is the last of the witnesses.
        If there are any additional statements from witnesses, they
    will be included in the record.
        [The statements follow:]

    Prepared Statement of the National Brain Injury Research, Treatment, &
                              Training Foundation

        My name is Dr. George Zitnay, and I am the founder of the National
    Brain Injury Research, Treatment and Training Foundation (NBIRTT) \1\
    and a co-founder of the Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program
    (DVHIP). On behalf of the thousands of military personnel sustaining
    brain injuries, I respectfully request $19 million be provided in the
    Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007
    for the Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program (DVHIP). This request
    includes the $7 million in the DOD's POM, and an additional $12 million
    to allow the important work of the program to continue during this
    critical time in the war on terrorism.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NBIRTT is a non-profit national foundation dedicated to the
    support of clinical research, treatment and training.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     traumatic brain injury is the signature injury of the war on terrorism
        Over 1,500 military personnel involved in the global war on terror
    have been seen and treated by DVHIP. At Walter Reed alone, over 650
    soldiers with brain injuries from Iraq and Afghanistan have been
    treated. Forty percent of those injured in a blast/explosion and seen
    at Walter Reed had a traumatic brain injury. A little more than half
    (50 percent) of these injuries are moderate to severe and will require
    life long support.
        One of the greatest challenges the military health care and
    veterans systems face is to assure that no one falls through the
    cracks. More than ever we need congressional support to provide for
    active duty soldiers and veterans who suffered a brain injury in Iraq
    and Afghanistan, as a result of explosions, penetrating head injury,
    crashes, and other assaults.
        Improved body armor, the significance of even mild brain injury,
    and the high frequency of troops wounded in blasts all lead to blast-
    induced TBI being an important health issue in this war. Many of the
    soldiers and veterans with brain injury treated by DVHIP also have Post
    Traumatic Stress Disorder and other medical complications.

              THE DEFENSE AND VETERANS HEAD INJURY PROGRAM (DVHIP)

        The DVHIP is a component of the military health care system that
    integrates clinical care and clinical follow-up, with applied research,
    treatment and training. The program was created after the first Gulf
    War to address the need for an overall systemic program for providing
    brain injury specific care and rehabilitation within DOD and DVA. The
    DVHIP seeks to ensure that all military personnel and veterans with
    brain injury receive brain injury-specific evaluation, treatment and
    follow-up.
        Clinical care and research is currently undertaken at seven DOD and
    DVA sites and two civilian treatment sites.\2\ In addition to providing
    treatment, rehabilitation and case management at each of the nine
    primary DVHIP centers, the DVHIP includes a regional network of
    additional secondary veterans' hospitals capable of providing TBI
    rehabilitation, and linked to the primary lead centers for training,
    referrals and consultation. This is coordinated by a dedicated central
    DVA TBI coordinator and includes an active TBI case manager training
    program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC; James A. Haley
    Veterans Hospital, Tampa, Florida; Naval Medical Center San Diego, San
    Diego, California; Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
    Minneapolis, Minnesota; Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System,
    Palo Alto, California; Virginia Neurocare, Inc., Charlottesville,
    Virginia; Hunter McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Richmond,
    Virginia; Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
    Conemaugh Health System, Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DVHIP continues to ensure optimal care, conduct clinical research,
    and provide educational programs on TBI for Active Duty military and
    veterans. All DVHIP sites have maintained and many have increased
    treatment capacity. This has been a direct response to the influx of
    patients seen secondary to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation
    Enduring Freedom (OEF). WRAMC receives more casualties from theater
    than all of the other military treatment facilities (MTFs) in the
    continental United States. Patients are often seen at WRAMC within a
    week or two after injury and many of these patients have multiple
    injuries (e.g., TBI, traumatic amputations, shrapnel wounds, etc.).
        To meet the increased demand, screening procedures were developed
    by DVHIP headquarters and clinical staff. The DVHIP clinical staff
    reviews all incoming casualty reports at WRAMC and screens all patients
    who may have sustained a brain injury based on the mechanism of injury
    (i.e., blast/explosion, vehicular accident, fall, gunshot wound to the
    head, etc.). DVHIP screening is catching TBI patients that might
    otherwise go undetected, posing a potential threat to patients and, in
    the case of premature return to Active Duty, military readiness.
        To date, DVHIP staff has accomplished the following:
    Clinical Care
        Developed the Military Acute Concussion Evaluation (MACE) for use
    in all operational settings, including in-theater.
        Developed management guidelines for mild, moderate, and severe TBI
    in-theater.
        Established a telemedicine network linking DVHIP's military and VA
    sites.
        Initiated a care coordination capacity for persons with TBI in
    regions remote from one of the DVHIP core sites. Still needed (and
    planned if funding is available) are greater treatment capacity,
    particularly at the community reentry level, and an expanded care
    coordination system that meets the special needs of persons with TBI
    and is widely distributed across the country.
    Research
        Commenced multiple new projects and collaborations focused on
    defining and understanding blast-related TBI.
        Continued active medication treatment trials for TBI-related
    symptoms.
        Presented preliminary scientific reports on patterns of TBI
    emerging from OIF and OEF.
        Initiated development of a clinical platform for the testing of a
    promising novel rehabilitation intervention for TBI based on animal
    experiments with environmental enrichment.
        Still needed (and planned if funding is available) are more DVHIP-
    based investigators and other research personnel to address further the
    many TBI-related issues emerging from OIF and OEF.
    Education and Training
        Developed a syllabus for training first responders in the
    management of moderate and severe TBI in-theater.
        Developed the first two modules of a course for first responders
    and other clinicians in the assessment and management of mild TBI.
        Initiated a public awareness campaign on TBI called ``Survive,
    Thrive, & Alive,'' the centerpiece of which is a documentary on TBI in
    military and veterans that will be released this summer.
        Developed an outreach team to train clinical personnel at non-DVHIP
    sites in the assessment and management of mild TBI.
        Still needed (and planned if funding is available), is to build on
    the public awareness campaign and develop a broadly available
    multimedia educational capacity for military and veteran TBI patients,
    their families, clinicians, and all other persons who are touched by
    this significant public health problem.

                        OUR INJURED TROOPS NEED SUPPORT

        There is no cure for brain injury. That is why the research being
    carried out by DVHIP is critical. We must find a way through research
    to help our injured soldiers with brain injury to return to as near
    normal life as possible.
        Since many of the soldiers with brain injuries will have life long
    needs resulting from their injuries, we need to make sure community
    services are available wherever the soldier lives. This will be done
    through local case management program and linkage to DVHIP sites.
        DVHIP has reached out to screen troops returning from the field to
    make sure no one with a brain injury falls through the cracks. Teams
    from DVHIP have been sent to Fort Dix, Fort Campbell, Fort Knox, Camp
    Pendleton, Fort Carson, Fort Irwin, Fort Bragg, Tripler Army Medical
    Center and others as requested by base commanders. Teams have also
    traveled to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany to provide
    evaluation and treatment on an ongoing basis. The DVHIP is an important
    tool to assure a continuum of care, but the program requires additional
    resources to assure that no TBI is overlooked or misdiagnosed.

            $19 MILLION IS NEEDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2007 FOR THE DVHIP

        The DVHIP needs a plus up of at least $12 million to care for these
    injured soldiers and their families. Last year Congress instructed the
    DVHIP to move to Fort Detrick. This has been accomplished. Our request
    for the DVHIP is simple. In addition to the $7 million in the POM, the
    DVHIP needs a minimum of $12 million dedicated to the work of the DVHIP
    to provide state-of-the-art care to brain injured soldiers regardless
    of where they live, and to continue our scientific research aimed at
    improving outcomes from brain injury, especially from blast injuries.
        Please support $19 million for the DVHIP in the fiscal year 2007
    Defense Appropriations bill under AMRMC, Fort Detrick to continue this
    important program.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of Vietnam Veterans of America

        Chairman Stevens, ranking member Inouye, and distinguished Senators
    of the Defense Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, on
    behalf of VVA National President John P. Rowan and all of our members,
    we thank you for giving Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) the
    opportunity to make our views known about the fiscal needs of America's
    service persons and our soon-to-be veterans.

                       THE SEARCH FOR AMERICA'S MIA/POWS

        First and foremost, I wish to note that the highest priority of VVA
    for 25 years has been, achieving the fullest possible accounting of
    those who are still unaccounted for in Vietnam. Today there are 1,805
    missing and unaccounted for since the end of the Vietnam War since
    1975; 1,380 in Vietnam, 364 in Laos, 54 in Cambodia and 7 in PRC
    territorial waters. VVA commends the Defense Prisoners of War and
    Missing in Action Office (DPMO) for their outstanding work in assisting
    with the recovery of our missing Americans.
        The Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC) budget for 2006 fell
    about $3.6 million short and caused the cancellation and scaling back
    of many investigative and recovery operations. VVA urges Congress to
    ensure JPAC receives the dedicated funding level of $65 million in
    fiscal year 2007 and that JPAC funding be a mandatory single line item
    budget just as DIA's Stoney Beach Team and DPMO so that these
    accounting operations don't have to compete with other funding
    priorities.
        Mr. Chairman, every President since President Gerald Ford has noted
    that the Nation's highest priority is the fullest possible accounting
    for our Missing in Action (MIAs), whether they be Prisoners of War or
    that this activity be recovery of remains, and returning these remains
    to American soil. In any case, resolution for the families involved is
    essential and we urge this distinguished body, as we approach Memorial
    Day and as ``Rolling Thunder'' is bearing down on the Capitol in honor
    of POW/MIAs, and to press for the fullest possible accounting of our
    MIAs and POWs, to ensure that the resources are there to do the job
    right.

                                    TRICARE

        VVA strongly opposes the inordinate and unfair increases being
    discussed for TriCare recipients. These increases would impose yet
    another disincentive for patriotic Americans to serve their career in
    uniform defending our Nation, and do great injustice to those who have
    already done so, and to their families.
        DOD claims rising health costs impinge on weapons programs. The
    Joint Chiefs endorse the fee hikes because their leaders tell them that
    this is the only way there will be enough money to fund needed weapons
    systems, new equipment, and other materiel needed for the defense of
    the Nation.
        For senior Department of Defense leadership to juxtapose caring for
    service members and former service members when they become veterans
    with acquiring hardware is so outrageous that it should be cause for
    public chastisement by the President. If memory serves, the leadership
    of the Senate Armed Services Committee did rebuke that official at the
    first public declaration, in a bi-partisan manner. Yet the persistent
    pattern that would translate this unfortunate attitude into policy and
    practice continues unabated. You have the ability to call a halt to
    this affront to the men and women of our Armed Forces by stopping the
    proposed sharp increases in TriCare cost-shifting to the service
    members and their families.
        Those who prepare the Defense budget request assume the changes
    will save money by causing hundreds of thousands of retirees to stop
    using their earned military benefits. This is a morally wrong policy.
    Top DOD leaders continue to say fees should bring military closer to
    civilian practices. Military service is not analogous to civilian-
    sector jobs. Some of those who maintain that it is would better
    understand if they had personally had the honor and privilege of
    serving our country in the military, particularly during wartime. Any
    comparison with private sector benefits and health care practices is
    simply mistaken and inappropriate.
        Traditionally, providing first rate military medical and retirement
    benefits have helped make up for the pay differentials with the private
    sector, and serve as something of a reward for enduring many years of
    often very difficult service. The medial care of retirees is not low-
    cost or no-cost. Rather, it is a ``pre-paid'' medical cost by virtue of
    a hard 20 years or more of military service and sacrifice. Recruiting
    problems today show few Americans are willing to pay that heavy premium
    for that benefit.
        VVA notes that the DOD proposed increases for health care would far
    outstrip annual retired pay increases and would greatly erode retired
    compensation value. Again this year, as was the case in the last few
    years, Congress wisely has refused to accept VA health fee increases
    for veterans who are not service connected disabled who had served as
    few as 2 years.
        Tripling and quadrupling fees for those who served their best adult
    years in uniform would be even more inappropriate than charging non-
    career veterans exorbitant fees at VA. Our government has a moral
    obligation to provide benefits commensurate with the extraordinary
    commitments it demands from career service members.
        VVA notes that dramatically raising TriCare to what for many
    retirees will be virtually unaffordable levels will also drive many
    retirees, particularly those who are service-connected disabled, into
    what is already an overburdened and under-funded VA healthcare system.
    While the care at VA is excellent when access is gained, there just are
    not enough personnel to meet the demand as it is. The additional burden
    of driving retirees to that system will only displace the burden in an
    inappropriate manner.
        Although we would certainly hope this is not the case, perhaps it
    is the explicit or inadvertent wish of some at DOD to foist their
    responsibilities for the health of service members and former service
    members off onto the VA in a less than responsible manner. Whether this
    is the intent or not, it would certainly be the effect. However, we
    trust that this subcommittee will not allow such tactics, recognizing
    that caring for the men and women who have faithfully and honorably
    served our Nation is in fact an indispensable element of the essential
    cost of national defense, and keeping America free.

                          ELIMINATE THE ``WIDOWS'' TAX

        VVA strongly urges that fiscal year 2007 must be the year that we
    as a Nation move to eliminate the ``widow's tax.'' I speak of course of
    the situation in which there is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) vs. the Survivor Benefits
    Plan (SBP) annuity payments. VVA encourages the Senate not wait for the
    Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission report to do what is so
    clearly the right thing. VVA urges that you end the dollar-for-dollar
    deduction of VA benefits for service-connected deaths from survivors'
    SBP annuities.
        Further, we urge that you move the effective date of the 30-year
    paid-up SBP coverage to October 1, 2005, (this measure affects retired
    military who pay for SBP). VVA believes that there is no justification
    for further delay in eliminating what is essentially an unjust tax on
    widows of our service members.

               RESEARCH: EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCKWAVE THERAPY (ESWT)

        The number and variety of burns and other terrible wounds
    afflicting OIF/OEF veterans have caused great problems with
    regenerating tissue and skin over significant sections of the bodies of
    our wounded soldiers and marines. VVA participated in a briefing last
    weekend with Admiral Donald Arthur, Surgeon General of the Navy, and
    many key staff of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National
    Naval Medical Center (Bethesda) regarding ESWT or a private company,
    Tissue Regeneration Technologies (TRT), which is bringing this
    technology to the United States, made this compelling presentation. All
    are intersted in bringing this hopeful new technology to our wounded.
        The MTS 180 multiwave device is quite simple to use, takes minimal
    time and effort to apply, and most importantly has been demonstrated
    clearly to do no harm. There will be a direct benefit for U.S. soldiers
    wounded in battle should this be approved. TRT believes, as does the
    clinical staff at WRAMC and NNMC, that the multiwave device can provide
    much quicker healing of the war wounds presented and thus save limbs
    from amputation and have each young man and woman return to a more
    normal life with their families after their duty in the military. The
    device promises to have a huge impact on those patients who have a
    difficult time recovering from wounds received in the line of duty.
        Research on this therapy worldwide has demonstrated ingrowth of new
    blood vessels in areas lacking such, destruction of bacterial
    pathogens, production of growth factors and other processes that lead
    to healing of tissues (bone and skin) in a rapid fashion. TRT has
    agreed to donate a device to the WRAMC, assist in writing the protocol,
    and provide Dr. Wolfgang Schaden (with TRT) expertise, training and
    guidance for a study involving those wounded men and women. The Henry
    M. Jackson Foundation has agreed to assist in supporting this effort.
    The end goal, should the device prove efficacious, would be to provide
    devices on the field of battle that would readily support limb- and
    life-saving therapy.
        What is needed is approximately $17 million specifically designated
    large-scale study that would involve WRAMC, NNMC, and hopefully the
    Uniformed Services University (USU), and the National Institutes of
    Health (NIH) in assembling a combined Institutional Review Board (IRB),
    and for actually conducting a rigorous clinical outcomes study of this
    seemingly extraordinary tool.
        An additional benefit of ensuring that this is collaborative effort
    or with a common protocol IRB is to set the stage for many other
    vitally needed clinical research projects that are likely to directly
    and immediately help to provide even more magnificent care than our
    grievously wounded are already receiving today. The cooperation of the
    Department of Veteran Affairs is all that is needed to make this a
    complete loop, and assist with strengthening the continuum of care for
    the seriously wounded and injured.

      DISPOSITION OF THE AIR FORCE HEALTH STUDY (AFHS) DATA AND SPECIMENS

        The Air Force Health Study (AFHS), more commonly known as the
    ``Ranch Hand Study,'' is coming to a close. This study, which has
    spanned more than 25 years (1979 to the end date of September 30,
    2006), has produced a wealth of data about the participants. In
    addition, there are more than 60,000 blood and tissue samples
    (biospecimens) that the AFHS never had the time or resources to even
    test, much fully analyze.
        In response to the mandate of being directed to do so pursuant to
    Public Law 108-183, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs contracted with
    the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies of Sciences
    to consider the question of whether this data and biospecimens should
    be retained for future analysis and additional study; and, if so, where
    the repository of these biospecimens and data sets should be, in order
    that the integrity of the data and physical samples be preserved and
    that the chain of custody be maintained.
        The IOM recommended three possible sites for this repository,
    assuming that arrangements and permission can be obtained from the
    National Archives: one of the two Epidemiological Information and
    Research Centers (ERICs) of the Department of Veterans Affairs; and,
    the Medial Follow-Up Agency (MFUA) of the Institute of Medicine.
        Vietnam Veterans of America testified that the only one of these
    three that everyone could have full confidence in was MFUA, as it has a
    history of exemplary and impartial scientific work extending back to at
    least World War II. However, any of these three options need additional
    resources to take on this burden. The IOM estimated that it will take
    up to $300,000 per year to manage and support the custodian's data
    management responsibilities, and approximately the same amount to care
    for the biospecimens. First-year costs would be higher because of the
    transfer and set-up costs.
        The time is short, and the funds to maintain the data and
    biospecimens must be available on October 1, 2006 in order to maintain
    the chain of custody, keep the freezers on for the biospecimens, and
    handle all the myraid activities that must be done. Further, the IOM
    recommended that a minimum of 5 years would be needed, with at least
    $250,000 for small grants, to discover whether the reposited material
    and data are of the unique scientific value they are assured to have.
        For all of the reasons outlined above, VVA strongly urges the
    subcommittee to make available $1 million for fiscal year 2007, with a
    commitment of $800,000 in each of the succeeding 4 fiscal years, and
    direct that the data be transitioned to the Medical Follow-Up Agency
    (MFUA) of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies of
    Science (NAS). Further, VVA asks that report language direct the Air
    Force to ensure that there is no lapse in the transition, and that the
    physical integrity and chain of custody be fully maintained, whether by
    Air Force personnel or by the current contractors working on the AFHS.
            health care screening for deploying and returning troops
        The force readiness plan being developed by the Pentagon at the
    behest of Congress must include a full medical examination, to include
    a blood draw and a psychosocial history by a qualified clinician, for
    all troops prior to their deployment overseas and upon their
    redeployment. This must include a face-to-face mental health care
    encounter. VVA is greatly perturbed by reports of troops on heavy
    medications being sent to the war zones, and of those who receive
    mental health profiles while in Iraq or Afghanistan being sent back
    into combat situations.
        The traditional role of military medicine has always been ``Force
    Readiness,'' i.e., how quickly can service members be returned to full
    duty with a minimal expenditure of resources, and delivery of treatment
    as far forward as possible. In the past 10 years, there has been an
    effort to shift to a model of ``Force Health Protection'' that seeks to
    safeguard to long-term health of the individual service member and
    reduce or avoid severe health consequences of military service in the
    future. However, when there is a situation such as exists today, where
    virtually every service member (or member of the National Guard or
    Reserves) is needed to maintain the mission, ``Force Readiness'' trumps
    all other considerations.

                             MENTAL HEALTH AND PTSD

        The problem is that sending troops back into the war zone for a
    forced second or third tour, including those who already have Post-
    Traumatic Stress (PTSD) problems, is to ensure that the severity and
    chronicity of the problems that these individuals will suffer in the
    future will be much more acute. News reports that many who are already
    on medication, including psychotropic and/or heavy anti-depression
    medications because of mental health problems stemming from their
    previous tour(s), are also being forced to deploy yet again are really
    disturbing.
        DOD has long discriminated against anyone who has come forth to
    report any such problems, causing service members who wish to stay in
    the service and wish to be promoted not to seek help from military
    medical personnel, but rather to self medicate and/or seek help at
    their own expense from civilian sources. Now it seems that DOD wants to
    have it both ways, i.e., not promote these service members but still
    send them back to the war zone knowing this will worsen and/or
    exacerbate their condition. How many suicides or breakdowns in the
    field will it take to stop this shortsighted approach?
        Similarly disturbing are reports that both Army and Navy physicians
    have been forbidden to use the diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress
    Disorder, which is in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV),
    as a valid diagnosis. Rather, we understand that military physicians at
    many sites are instructed to use ``combat stress,'' or ``personality
    disorder,'' or other euphemisms in their notes, despite the fact that
    these euphemisms are not defined, validated, or recognized by the
    American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Medical
    Association (AMA), or any other legitimate medical entity. This is
    apparently being done despite the fact that many of these individuals
    clearly meet all or many of the 14 classic symptoms of PTSD. Why would
    anyone do that? The answer is that because it is not a recognized
    diagnosis, it does not qualify the service member for a medical
    retirement.
        Because our newest veterans appear to be suffering the
    psychological stresses and disorders in far greater numbers than even
    the Vietnam generation, it is imperative that after deployments a
    system of acute stress counseling and PTSD counseling be emplaced, a
    system that is funded by DOD and delivered by VA personnel and private
    practitioners. What is needed is some sort of ``firewall.'' If the
    individual gets better, then he or she will pass their pre-deployment
    face-to-face mental health encounter, and be stronger for having
    admitted to the problem and getting effective help. If they are
    experiencing mental health difficulties, then that same clinical
    encounter will screen them out, whether they have sought treatment or
    not.
        This counseling must be made available to Reservists and members of
    the National Guard and their families in addition to active-duty troops
    when they have returned. As about 60 percent of the Guard and Reserve
    members live in towns of 2,500 or less, there needs to be creative
    solutions in order to get these folks the help they and their families
    so often need. To treat PTSD in the service member or veteran, one must
    treat the whole family or the chances of success are greatly
    diminished. Currently there is little or nothing being done for the
    Guard and Reserve members, or their families, who are far from any
    military hospital, or even a VA facility.
        In this same regard, reports persist that the problem documented by
    Senators Bond and Leahy (co-chairs of the National Guard and Reserve
    Caucus in the Senate) 3 years ago that National Guard and Reserve
    troops were waiting inordinately long periods for medical care at
    military medical facilities has not gone away, and in fact is again
    becoming widespread. Much of the problem, VVA believes, is that like
    most of the military, the military medical organizational capacity has
    been too far downsized in the name of ``streamlining'' and
    ``modernizing.'' We urge the subcommittee to increase the funding
    allocation for the number of physicians and allied healthy care
    personnel for fiscal year 2007, with appropriate report language that
    directs DOD to track the care and waiting periods of these individuals,
    who are so vital to the total force concept, to ensure that they are
    not being treated as ``second class citizens'' in the military medical
    system, thereby worsening the medical conditions of these soon-to-be
    veterans.

                             MILITARY SEXUAL TRAUMA

        It has become clear in the last decade that sexual harassment and
    sexual abuse are far more rampant than what had been acknowledged by
    the military. Reported instances of sexual harassment and abuse
    represent only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. While we are pleased
    that both the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs seem now to
    be taking this seriously, finally explicitly acknowledging sexual
    trauma as a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in
    the Defense Authorization Act of 2005, there is still a long road to
    travel to change the current atmosphere that conditions victims of
    sexual abuse to not report this abuse to authorities. VVA urges you to
    include report language directing a comprehensive review of the
    penalties for military sexual trauma under the Uniform Code of Military
    Justice to determine if the penalties are commensurate with the
    offenses, and to act to ensure uniform enforcement in all branches of
    the military, and to explore such mechanisms to achieve quality
    assurance on uniformity of enforcement such as a worldwide Internet
    address and a nationwide toll-free number, that would be staffed by
    counselors 24/7 trained to effectively assist, counsel, and refer
    service members (or family members) who have been the victim of sexual
    assault. VVA believes that only by means of such a mechanism that is
    not dependent on local command can there be uniformity of quality
    assistance and equal application of justice.
        Further, VVA urges that report language direct DOD to do a better
    job of establishing a continuum of care for victims with the VA, so
    that these individuals go from the military into appropriate care at
    the VA nearest to their home.

              NATIONAL VIETNAM VETERANS LONGITUDINAL STUDY (NVVLS)

        While it is not specifically within the purview of this
    subcommittee, VVA brings to your attention the requirement in Public
    Law 106-419, The Veterans' Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of
    2000, that the VA contract to do a follow-up to the National Vietnam
    Veterans Readjustment Study, done some 20 years ago. Several of the
    distinguished Senators on this subcommittee are also on the Military
    Construction and VA Subcommittee, and all of the distinguished Senators
    are on the full Appropriations Committee. VA has delayed, dithered, and
    is now refusing to do the replication of the earlier study, utilizing
    the very same people--veterans who served in Vietnam, veterans who
    served in the Vietnam Era but who did not serve in Southeast Asia, and
    a non-veteran cohort matched for socio-economic and educational
    factors. The VA is now refusing to do the study, and is in defiance of
    the law and of the Congress. VVA believes that some in the VA and the
    Office of Management and Budget do not want to complete this study
    because of what they believe the results will be in terms of lifetime
    mortality and morbidities of combat veterans. As such, they are being
    contemptuous of the law and the Congress by their continued refusal.
        As the Judiciary is loath to do so in cases such as this (where
    there is a dispute between the other two branches of government such as
    a study mandated by the Congress and the Executive branch does not do
    it), only the Congress can compel the Executive branch to complete this
    legally mandated study, and the only means to that is by means of the
    appropriations process. This study, known as the National Vietnam
    Veterans Longitudinal Study (NVVLS), must be funded--and the VA
    compelled to immediately re-initiate this statutorily mandated study
    and bring it to an early and proper conclusion.
        The NVVLS represents the last best chance we have of understanding
    the nature and scope of the health problems of Vietnam veterans. The
    results of this study will also greatly assist Congress in planning not
    just for the health care needs of Vietnam veterans, but anticipating
    the long-term health care problems of our troops risking their lives in
    Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world today.
        Line item funding for this study and strong explicit report
    language are needed to compel the VA to fulfill its responsibility to
    comply with the mandate set by Congress.

         TRANSITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM MUST BE MANDATORY FOR COMMANDERS

        The greatest barrier to benefits and entitlements that soon-to-be
    separated veterans face is that they simply do not know about them. The
    ``Transition Assistance Program'' (TAP) has been developed in the past
    20 years to help remedy this situation. Unfortunately, this program is
    very uneven. This is due partly because it is an ancillary duty for
    most of the people involved, whether they be from the VA, the State
    workforce development agency (funded by the Department of Labor-
    Veterans Employment and Training Service), or others in the veterans
    service matrix. The most important thing that this committee can do is
    direct that sufficient resources be allocated for this program, and
    that successfully and effectively mounting TAP sessions for all
    personnel be made a mandatory item on the Officer Efficiency Report and
    evaluation for commanders.
        It is imperative for their future and the well-being of the Nation
    that the transition from service member to fully employed veteran be
    achieved in the overwhelming majority of cases. This includes providing
    all the assistance needed especially for disabled veterans, to be able
    to obtain and sustain meaningful employment at a living wage. Much of
    the key to accomplishing this goal is simply provides useful
    information and educating the departing service member. Former service
    members who successfully transition into civilian life are the very
    best recruiters the services have, and a better-administered TAP
    program will greatly aid that effective and speedy transition.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Again, VVA thanks you for
    the opportunity to present our views here today regarding a number of
    essential points regarding the fiscal year 2007 Defense Appropriations
    legislation.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to submit this testimony regarding the Department of
    Defense basic scientific research program and the Defense Experimental
    Program to Stimulate Competitive Research or ``DEPSCoR.''
        I am Royce Engstrom, Provost and Vice President for Academic
    Affairs at the University of South Dakota. I am also chair of the
    Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States, which is a non-profit organization
    that promotes the importance of strong science and technology research
    infrastructure, and works to improve the research competitiveness of
    States that have historically received less federal research funding.
    Previously, I was Vice President for Research at USD. I mention my
    background because I have had the opportunity to observe from several
    career points that there is great truth in the concept that all States
    and regions have impressive science and technology resources that can
    benefit mission agencies like the Department of Defense.
        I am submitting this statement on behalf of the Coalition of 24
    EPSCoR States in support of increasing the fiscal year 2007 budgets of
    both the Department of Defense's science and engineering research
    program for basic research, and an important component of that program,
    DOD's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCoR).
    These States have one-fifth of the Nation's academic science and
    engineers and represent an important resource for developing the pool
    of S&T talent that can serve DOD.
        First, I would like to thank the chairman and the rest of the
    subcommittee for your leadership and long-term support of the Defense
    Departments science and technology programs. America's uniformed men
    and women benefit greatly from the high tech products produced through
    DOD funding. Academic basic research is the first step in the process
    of bringing discovery in the research labs to applied research and
    ultimately to development and product creation and availability for the
    front line.
        The Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States strongly support increasing the
    Department's budget for basic research. The coalition urges the
    Congress and the administration to provide a significant investment in
    the Science and Technology (S&T) programs of the Department of Defense.
    The EPSCoR/IDeA States are in full agreement with the recommendation
    contained in the National Academies (NAS) report, Rising Above the
    Gathering Storm, and call for a 10-percent increase in basic defense
    research in fiscal year 2007.
        DOD-funded research is an essential component to meeting both the
    economic and security challenges facing our Nation now and in the
    future In the past, national defense investments in science and
    engineering have helped to create a well-trained cadre of U.S.
    scientists and engineers and have provided important educational
    opportunities for several generations of soldiers, veterans, and
    citizens while strengthening our national and economic security.
        DEPSCoR is a small, but significant, part of this larger, multi-
    faceted DOD research program. The coalition recommends that Congress
    appropriate $20 million to the Department of Defense budget for the
    DEPSCoR Program in fiscal year 2007. DEPSCoR was initially authorized
    by section 257 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1995
    (Public Law 103-337), and was created to help build national
    infrastructure for research and education by funding research
    activities in science and engineering fields that are important to
    national defense. DEPSCoR's objectives are: (1) To enhance the
    capabilities of institutions of higher education in DEPSCoR States to
    develop, plan, and execute science and engineering research that is
    competitive under the merit review systems used for awarding federal
    research assistance; and (2) To increase the probability of long-term
    growth in the competitively awarded financial assistance that DEPSCoR
    universities in eligible States receive from the Federal government for
    science and engineering research.
        I would now like to highlight a few ``DEPSCoR-funded'' success
    stories of research projects that have and are, presently, contributing
    to our national defense interests. In my own State of South Dakota,
    three significant research projects at the South Dakota School of Mines
    and Technology are under investigations through the DEPSCoR program. In
    one project, aluminum nanoparticles are being studied for their unique
    energy release characteristics, which can increase the metal
    acceleration from an explosive weapon. The particles also have
    potential use in primers, low-collateral warheads, and solid propellant
    additives. In another project, novel polycarbonate polymers are being
    developed for incorporation into transparent armor for face shields,
    goggles, and windshields. Finally, scientists are developing new
    ``spintronic'' devices that combine electronic, magnetic, and optical
    properties into a single chip, resulting in powerful devices that
    operate on a fraction of the energy of today's devices and with much
    less weight.
        Projects from other EPSCoR states include:
      --The University of Alaska Fairbanks' researchers at the Institute of
            Arctic Biology are examining the central human nervous system
            with potential applications for reducing the severity of combat
            casualties by extending the window of opportunity for transport
            to medical facilities.
      --The University of Hawaii at Manoa's researchers are using DEPSCoR
            funding to improve tropical cyclone forecasts for the Joint
            Typhoon Warning Center, which is DOD's operational center for
            tropical cyclone forecasting in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
      --University of Kentucky researchers are working on a novel high-
            throughput Piezoelectric Technology, and have built and tested
            working prototypes and signal processing software. This will
            allow, for the first time, high-throughput genetic approaches
            that may answer fundamental questions about sleep and wake
            behavior. In turn, this knowledge is likely to suggest both new
            pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches to deal with
            performance decrements from sleep disruptions that are so
            common during military operations.
      --University of Montana researchers are working to understand the
            cause of oxidative stress in war fighters. This will have a
            direct impact on every soldier working in extreme environments
            while carrying heavy equipment. Often these men and women
            suffer from short-term impairment of metabolic function and
            cognitive ability. Long-term effects of oxidative stress
            include neurodegenerative disease and cancer. Understanding
            this condition in military personal will allow for the design
            of treatment protocols to minimize this aberrant metabolic
            state and its subsequent short- and long-term health effects.
      --University of Nevada, Las Vegas researchers are working to further
            the number of applications for wireless sensor networks in
            military surveillance and civilian areas. For DOD, the use of
            unmanned surveillance and monitoring systems using wireless
            senor networks is of great practical importance, bringing
            energy efficiency, scalability, dependability, and security to
            military efforts. These characteristics obviously also can
            enhance civilian endeavors as well.
      --North Dakota State University is conducting research aimed at
            lengthening the life of ship structures. This research will
            lead to significant savings in military spending on marine
            fuel, maintenance and replacement of ships.
        Again, these are only a few of the many DEPSCoR-funded research
    initiatives that add to our national body of knowledge on varying
    national security issues.
        DEPSCoR awards are provided to mission-oriented individual academic
    investigators to conduct research that has practical military
    applications. However, the program as it is currently implemented has
    not taken into account the significant benefits that can be derived
    from pooling individual investigators efforts into ``centers'' of
    research that meet the ever-increasing challenges and needs of the
    Department of Defense and the Services.
        The DEPSCoR States propose restructuring the program into two
    components. The first component would retain the current structure
    whereby the single investigators are invited to compete for research
    awards in areas identified by the Department and the Services. The
    second and new component would award funding to mission-oriented
    ``centers.'' These centers of defense excellence would be
    interdisciplinary areas and would build defense research capacity.
        To achieve important defense research objectives of both the
    components of the program, the DEPSCoR States suggest that the program
    be funded at $20 million for fiscal year 2007 with $10 million
    obligated to the individual investigator awards and $10 million for the
    mission-oriented centers initiative. This twin approach to funding will
    enhance the Department's ability to tap into the best ideas that the
    DEPSCoR States have to offer in support of the Nation's security needs.
        In conclusion, it is important that DOD is able to utilize the
    resources of all States and regions universities and the science and
    technology talent that reside in these institutions. DEPSCoR works to
    enable these resources to be available to advance the DOD mission.
    DEPSCoR is a wise and worthwhile investment of scarce public resources,
    and will continue to contribute research that supports national defense
    needs. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Florida State University

        Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
    subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony before this
    committee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
    Florida State University.
        Located in Tallahassee, Florida's capitol, FSU is a comprehensive
    Research I university with a rapidly growing research base. The
    university serves as a center for advanced graduate and professional
    studies, exemplary research, and top-quality undergraduate programs.
    Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong commitment to quality in
    teaching, to performance of research and creative activities, and have
    a strong commitment to public service. Among the current or former
    faculty are numerous recipients of national and international honors
    including Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and several members
    of the National Academy of Science. Our scientists and engineers do
    excellent research, have strong interdisciplinary interests, and often
    work closely with industrial partners in the commercialization of the
    results of their research. Florida State University had over $182
    million this past year in research awards.
        Florida State University attracts students from every State in the
    Nation and more than 100 foreign countries. The university is committed
    to high admission standards that ensure quality in its student body,
    which currently includes National Merit and National Achievement
    Scholars, as well as students with superior creative talent. We
    consistently rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges and universities in
    attracting National Merit Scholars to our campus.
        At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as
    well as our emerging reputation as one of the Nation's top public
    research universities.
        Mr. Chairman, let me briefly tell you about the projects we are
    pursuing this year. The first project is an FSU-led DARPA project that
    involves several other State universities in Florida. The work will
    focus on an Integrated Cryo-cooled High Power Density System,
    particularly as it relates to these systems and their applications in
    electric power systems. The objective of this multi-university research
    program is to achieve cryo-cooled high power densities through improved
    management and integration within the electric power system of heat
    generation and removal. This systems approach to solving this critical
    issue begins with identifying the enabling technologies needed, and
    then pursuing new systems approaches to advance the enabling
    technologies necessary for solution of these problems. Immediate
    applications could be with various electric drive systems currently
    under development by the various services and would include electric-
    drive ships, land vehicles, and other emerging electric drive power
    systems.
        The research activities supported within this project will be
    directed in several areas that include development of new materials
    that could be included in conductors, semi-conductors, and insulation
    that would become critical components in cryo-thermal systems and
    system components. The systems integration approach will be critical to
    this entire effort at FSU. We are requesting $3,000,000 for this very
    important new project.
        Our next project is entitled Nanotubes Optimized for Lightweight
    Exceptional Strength (NOLES)/Composite Materials, and is a continuing
    project with the U.S. Army. The U.S. Army's objective of developing a
    lighter fleet of fighting and personnel vehicles may be achieved
    through the diminutive single-walled carbon nanotubes that (1) are the
    strongest fiber known, (2) have a thermal conductivity two times higher
    than pure diamond, and (3) have unique electrical conductivity
    properties as either semi-conducting or metallic based on their
    structure. Work under previous Army funding has led the development and
    production of lightweight multifunctional composite structures. These
    structures are uniquely-created by resins impregnated with carbon
    nanotubes; these new composite materials hold the promise of creating
    structures, which, pound for pound, will be the strongest ever known,
    and hence offer maximum personnel and vehicle protection. Benefits are
    apparent not only to defense, but also throughout the commercial world.
        Partnered with the Army Research Laboratory and a number of defense
    companies, Florida State University's team of multi-disciplinary
    faculty and students has developed unique computational, analytical,
    and experimental capabilities in the field of nano-composite research.
    This research is leading to vital defense applications. For instance,
    in a partnership with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control-
    Orlando, FSU researchers are developing nanotube/polycarbonate (CNT/PC)
    composites that are expected to exhibit outstanding properties for an
    armor program. Initial testing showed that the FSU CNT/PC materials
    demonstrated favorable properties and deserved further investigation.
    The FSU researchers recently delivered the second batch of test
    materials. Additional field tests of the materials have been scheduled.
    In addition, FSU's nanotube composites are being tested for missile
    wings, UAVs, thermal management and missile guidance systems by Boeing,
    Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.
        Three foci are envisioned for fiscal year 2007: (1) to develop
    nanotubes as a material platform for a new generation of devices and
    systems, giving special attention to the design and demonstration of
    defense applications; (2) to use nanotubes and biological polymers in
    harvesting and conversion of solar and RF energy across the electro-
    magnetic spectrum; and (3) to develop processing technology for ultra
    lightweight, exceptionally strong composite materials to improve glass
    transition temperature, through-thickness strength and fire retardance.
    We are requesting $3,000,000 for this project in fiscal year 2007.
        Our third project involves the U.S. Navy, and it examines experts'
    ability to maintain superior performance under stress. The project is
    entitled, Refined Assessment and enhances Acquisition of Skilled
    Performance in the U.S. Navy. It includes a focus on designing
    assessment and training procedures to enhance performance. This project
    will be undertaken by FSU's Learning Systems Institute (LSI), which is
    used for multidisciplinary research on performance; in addition, the
    Virtual Human Performance Laboratory (vHPL) at LSI will enable the
    remote assessment and training of Navy fighter pilots. Researchers will
    utilize the results of studies of expert performance conducted with ONR
    together with new data on real-world and simulated performance under
    stress collected to design assessment and training procedures for
    skilled performance for these key Navy personnel. This research is
    designed to support ``An Evolving Joint Perspective: U.S. Joint Warfare
    and Crisis Resolution in the 21st Century,'' and is being conducted in
    accordance with current CNO guidance. We are requesting $1,500,000 for
    this project.
        Our final project involves the Integration of Electro-kinetic
    Weapons into Next-Generation Navy Ships. The U.S. Navy is developing
    the next generation war ship that will be based on an all-electric
    platform of propulsion loads and electric power systems with rapid
    reconfigurable distribution systems for integrated fight-through power
    (IFTPS). Through the IFTP system, large amounts of energy could be made
    available to new pulsed power weapon systems and other directed energy
    weapons. Many challenging technical issues arise before implementing a
    combat ready system. These include the appropriate topology for the
    ship electric distribution system for rapid reconfiguration to battle
    readiness and the energy supply technology for the weapon systems.
        The goal of this initiative is to investigate the energy delivery
    technologies for electro-kinetic weapons systems and investigate the
    integration and interface issues of these weapons as loads on the ship
    IFTPS through system simulations and prototype tests, and assess the
    capability and security of various system topologies and control
    schemes to operate the weapon systems. The results will provide the
    Navy and its ship-builders with vital information on design of the ship
    power system and weapon power supplies.
        With significant support from the Office of Naval Research (ONR),
    FSU has established the Center for Advanced Power Systems (CAPS). CAPS
    has integrated a real-time digital power system simulation and modeling
    capability and hardware test-bed, capable of testing IPS power system
    components at ratings up to 5MW, offering unique hardware-in-the-loop
    simulation capabilities hitherto unavailable anywhere in the world.
        In support of the proposed initiative, the National High Magnetic
    Field Laboratory (NHMFL) will utilize its world-class research
    expertise and infrastructure for the proposed development. FSU's
    partnership with University of Florida and Los Alamos National
    Laboratory is a key part of the NHMFL. This initiative will be also
    conducted in cooperation with the University of Texas-Austin and
    University of Missouri-Columbia. Each institution offers unique
    capabilities in design and prototyping of the energy storage and pulse
    forming networks needed. We are requesting $3,000,000 for this project.
        Mr. Chairman, we believe the research described above is vitally
    important to our country and the various military services. We would
    appreciate your support.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Air Force Sergeants Association

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished subcommittee Members, on behalf of
    the 130,000 members of the Air Force Sergeants Association, thank you
    for this opportunity to offer the views of our members on the fiscal
    year 2007 funding priorities of the Department of Defense. This hearing
    will address issues critical to those serving and who have served our
    Nation. AFSA represents Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, retired, and
    veteran enlisted Air Force members and their families. Your continuing
    efforts toward improving the quality of their lives has made a real
    difference, and our members are grateful. In this statement, I will
    list several specific goals that we hope this committee will consider
    funding during fiscal year 2007 on behalf of current and past enlisted
    members and their families. The content of this statement reflects the
    views of our members as they have communicated them to us. As always,
    we are prepared to present more details and to discuss these issues
    with your staffs.

                               HEALTH CARE ISSUES

        Defense Health Program Funding.--AFSA urges the subcommittee to
    ensure continued full funding for Defense Health Program needs. AFSA
    maintains that this Nation can afford to and must be dedicated to
    funding the weapons systems and the military health care system. We
    strongly recommend against DOD's desire to establish an annual
    enrollment fee for TRICARE Standard. We urge the subcommittee to
    require DOD to pursue greater efforts to improve TRICARE and find more
    effective and appropriate ways to make TRICARE more cost-efficient
    without seeking to shift the burden to those who have already paid a
    great price for their retirement health care benefits. Additionally,
    the DOD plan is based upon questionable assumptions of prospective
    changes in human behavior--a dangerous way to steer a fiscal course.
    Furthermore, if the assumptions upon which the DOD TRICARE plan is
    based are incorrect, military beneficiaries would likely face an ever-
    increasing cost for benefits they already paid for by facing unlimited
    liability for an entire career.
        Promoting TRICARE Standard Providers.--One of the great problems
    with TRICARE itself is that many doctors refuse to participate because
    it is not worth their while. AFSA urges this subcommittee to designate
    sufficient funding that will enhance provider participation and thus
    contribute to denying beneficiaries access to care.
        Pharmacy Copayments.--AFSA asks the subcommittee to provide the
    necessary funding prevent DOD plans to once again change the copayment
    rates for prescriptions until all medications are available in the mail
    order program and limiting any future pharmacy copayment increases to
    the lesser of the percentage increase in basic pay or retired pay,
    rounded down to the next lower dollar. The coalition recommends
    eliminating beneficiary copayments in the mail-order pharmacy system
    for generic and brand name medications to incentivize use of this
    lowest-cost option and to generate substantial cost savings.
        Dental Care Support.--AFSA asks this committee to take a serious
    look at additional funding for the dental care program for military
    members and their families. Some members report that the reimbursement
    rates for providers are not adjusted to the various regions. That being
    the case, dentists avoid participation in the program. The situation in
    Alaska, in particular, has been brought to our attention; however, the
    situation needs to be examined across the board to determine where
    there are inadequate providers to support the families of military
    members and the retirees in each region.
        Optometry Benefit for Retirees.--The earned career military benefit
    does not include a funded retiree optometry benefit. This is certainly
    fundamental to the health and well-being of those who have served, and
    AFSA requests this subcommittee's consideration toward supporting the
    implementation of such a benefit.

                                EDUCATION ISSUES

        Increase the value of the MGIB to cover the costs of tuition,
    books, and fees at an average 4-year college or university. Despite
    recent increases in the MGIB which brought the value of the MGIB up to
    $1,034, more needs to be done. If this Nation is going to have a
    program that sincerely intends to satisfy the purpose of the program,
    it certainly should mirror civilian industry by providing a
    comprehensive educational program and not an insufficient one.
    According to the ``College Report,'' an annual evaluative report
    published by the education ``industry,'' average monthly educational
    costs are more than $1,500 at this time. This figure reflects the cost
    of books, tuition, and fees at the average college or university for a
    commuter student. Of course, that average cost will increase in the
    future due to inflation. Payment for full books, tuition, and fees for
    a 4-year degree with annual indexing to maintain the value of the
    benefit, at least, ought to be provided for those who make the military
    a career. In recent months, several members of Congress have expressed
    interest in developing a new, improve ``Total Force MGIB.'' AFSA
    supports such an initiative and encourages this subcommittee to espouse
    it as well.
        An MGIB Enrollment Opportunity for VEAP-Era Military Members.--The
    education program for military members that preceded the Montgomery
    G.I. Bill (MGIB) was the Veterans Educational Assistance Program
    (VEAP). This was a program where you put in up to $2,700 and the
    government matched the amount you used for education on a 2-for-1
    basis. The maximum government contribution was $5,400. Hundreds of
    thousands of military members declined enrollment in that program due
    to very poor educational counseling. Many tell us they were advised by
    education officials not to enroll in the VEAP since a better program
    was coming along. Unfortunately, when the MGIB came along, those who
    didn't enroll in the VEAP were not allowed to enroll in the far-more-
    beneficial MGIB. DOD estimates last year indicated that there are still
    serving between 50,000 and 70,000 service members who declined
    enrollment in VEAP. S. 2091, sponsored by Senator Tim Johnson would
    correct this unfortunate situation. These members served since the mid
    1980s, helped preserve peace, and deserve an opportunity to enroll in
    the MGIB program. AFSA urges the subcommittee to fund that opportunity.
        Correct MGIB Enrollment Procedures.--At basic military training or
    boot camp, new servicemembers must make a decision. If they want to
    enroll in the MGIB, they must agree to have $100 per month deducted
    from their pay for each of their first 12 months of military service.
    This is twice as difficult for noncommissioned members because they
    make roughly half the pay of a newly commissioned officer. We urge the
    subcommittee to either eliminate the $1,200 user fee or allow enlisted
    members to make the payments over a 24-month period.
        Allow Transferability of MGIB Benefits to Family Members.--AFSA
    believes the MGIB benefit is earned, and military members ought to also
    be able to share the benefit with their family members, if they chose
    to do so. It would certainly serve to improve the quality of the lives
    of noncommissioned families. Transferability could be offered as a
    career incentive. For example, transferability could become an aspect
    of the program for all enrollees after they complete 12 or 13 years in
    service.
        Full Impact Aid Funding.--Impact Aid is supplemental funding
    provided to local school districts to compensate for the impact of
    having military members in that community. Local schools are primarily
    funded through property taxes. Those military members who reside on
    base do not pay into the property tax base. Recognizing this, each year
    Congress has provided supplemental dollars to such school districts.
    This funding is critical to quality education and the protection of the
    finances of military families; AFSA urges the subcommittee to continue
    the great work it has done on this front in recent years.
        In-state Tuition Rates for Military Members.--Military members are
    relocated from one military reservation to another at the pleasure of
    the government. Of course, servicemembers serve the entire Nation, and
    every State benefits from their service. Although we believe this issue
    would not require any additional funding considerations, we urge the
    subcommittee to do what it can to urge States to provide immediate in-
    state tuition rates at State colleges and universities as soon as
    military members and their families are relocated into that State. This
    should apply to the military members, their spouses, and their
    children.

           COMPENSATION AND PERMANENT-CHANGE-OF-STATION (PCS) ISSUES

        Senior NCO Pay Targeting.--AFSA urges the subcommittee to provide
    the necessary appropriations to allow further pay targeting toward the
    senior noncommissioned ranks. These members are critical to the success
    of the military mission, and their roles and responsibilities have
    increased significantly in recent years. It is no exaggeration to state
    the many jobs formerly handled by commissioned officers are now handled
    by senior enlisted members. As such, it is important for the
    subcommittee to take a critical look at the military pay charts and
    increase the pay levels of senior noncommissioned officers.
        Standard Reenlistment Bonus.--Each time military members reenlist,
    they commit to subjecting themselves to unlimited liability--putting
    their lives at risk, if need be, to defend the interests of this
    Nation. As all men and women, these people are choosing to devote a
    significant portion of their days on Earth to freedom. The current
    reenlistment bonus structure is strictly a force manipulation mechanism
    to adequately man hard-to-fill jobs. AFSA urges the subcommittee to
    provide the necessary funding which allows a standard reenlistment
    bonus each time a military member extends their military commitment.
        Increased Household Good (HHG) Weight Allowances for Senior NCOs
    During PCS Moves.--AFSA thanks this subcommittee for role in the modest
    increase in household goods weight allowances for senior NCOs approved
    last year. However, we recommend that these allowances be increased
    even further. Currently, the highest ranking enlisted members (E-9s)
    who are generally career-committed and have served the Nation for over
    two decades are afforded approximately the same HHG weight allowances
    as a commissioned officer who has served only 4 years. An E-7, probably
    at the average career point of 15 years, is given roughly the same HHG
    weight allowance as an O-1, just entering military service. HHG weight
    allowances should have some relation to average time in service, family
    size, probably accumulation of goods as a family grows, etc. It
    certainly should not be significantly different for commissioned and
    enlisted members. We believe the ethical, common-sense, way to provide
    this allowance would be parallel increases between the commissioned and
    enlisted rank charts with an E-1 and O-1 receiving the same HHG Weight
    Allowance, an E-2 receiving the same allowance as an O-2, etc. Such
    changes would require the support and therefore, funding considerations
    of this subcommittee.

                            GUARD AND RESERVE ISSUES

        Age 55 Retirement.--What has been true for years has become
    particularly evident in recent years--that members of the Guard and
    Reserve are full players in the defense of this Nation. Yet they are
    the only federal employees that have to wait until age 60 to enjoy
    their retirement benefits. As it is, their retirement pay is a fraction
    of that received by retired Active Duty members. Guard and Reserve
    retirement is based on an accumulation of service points. AFSA believes
    the right thing to do for the members of the Guard and Reserve is for
    this subcommittee to designate the necessary appropriations enabling a
    change to the law and allow these members the receipt of their
    retirement pay at age 55.
        Health Care.--In recent years, Congress has made great strides in
    addressing the Guard and Reserve health care situation, in part due to
    the great work of this committee. We urge that you continue along this
    path and provide a robust plan by expanding the current provisions and
    decreasing the fees for TRICARE Reserve Select.

                       RETIREMENT/VETERAN/SURVIVOR ISSUES

        Seamless DOD-VA Transition.--AFSA cannot stress enough the
    importance of properly funding programs that allow common use of
    medical records between DOD and the Veterans Administration, and to
    support other aspects of the transition from military service to
    veteran status. You have made great strides in recent years, and AFSA
    appreciates them. The issue of a common-sense transition from one
    status to the other, and the funding of programs to support it, has
    become even more critical during the time of the global war on
    terrorism.
        Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP) and Combat-Related
    Special Compensation (CRSC).--Congress has made progress on this matter
    in each of the last 5 or 6 years, and AFSA urges that it continue. We
    ask that you support expansion of CRSC for those Chapter 61 retirees
    (medically retired) who, through no fault of their own, were unable to
    complete 20 years of service. This would most effectively address those
    with the most serious disabilities and help to serve those fighting in
    the current actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        SBP ``Paid Up'' Provision.--This subcommittee acted on this several
    years ago by making this paid up feature effective in 2008. Some of
    these retirees have now been paying into SBP for many more years than
    30. We urge the subcommittee to implement the paid-up provision
    effective October 1, 2006.
        Eliminate the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)-Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation (DIC) Offset.--Currently, survivors receiving DIC from the
    VA see a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their SBP payments (provided by
    DOD). Similar to the CRDP issue, this is a matter that we hope the
    subcommittee can provide funding for this year.
        Allow DIC Survivors to Remarry After Age 55 Without Losing Their
    DIC Entitlement.--Congress provided some relief to these survivors for
    setting the remarriage age without losing DIC entitlement at 57. To
    parallel other federal programs, we urge the subcommittee to change the
    allowable remarriage age for these survivors at 55.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for this opportunity to
    present the views of the Air Force enlisted community. As you work
    toward your appropriations decisions, the Air Force Sergeants
    Association and its 130,000 members urge you to ensure sufficient
    funding to provide for the integrity of the entire Department of
    Defense and related programs. Now, more than ever, this funding and
    this Nation's commitment to our servicemembers must be above reproach.
    On behalf of all AFSA members, we appreciate your efforts and, as
    always, are ready to support you in matters of mutual concern.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Inouye. I thank you all for your testimony this
    morning, and the subcommittee will stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 10:49 a.m., Wednesday, May 24, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Air Force Sergeants Association, Prepared Statement of the.......   676
    Arthur, Vice Admiral Donald C., M.D., Surgeon General, Department
      of the Navy, Medical Health Programs, Department of Defense....   361
        Prepared Statement of........................................   362
        Questions submitted to.......................................   425
    Austin, Lieutenant Colonel Paul N., Certified Registered Nurse
      Anesthetist, Ph.D., on Behalf of the American Association of
      Nurse Anesthetists (AANA)......................................   548
        Prepared Statement of........................................   549

    Barnes, Master Chief Joseph L., United States Navy (Retired),
      National Executive Secretary, Fleet Reserve Association........   614
        Prepared Statement of........................................   615
    Benge, Seth, Director of Legislation, Reserve Enlisted
      Association, on Behalf of the Associations for America's
      Defense (A4AD).................................................   574
        Prepared Statement of........................................   576
    Bergman, Lieutenant General Jack W., Commander, Marine Corps
      Reserve, United States Marine Corps, Department of the Navy,
      Department of Defense..........................................   322
        Biographical Sketch of.......................................   333
        Prepared Statement of........................................   322
        Question Submitted to........................................   349
    Black, Sherry Salway, Executive Director, Ovarian Cancer National
      Alli-
      ance...........................................................   563
        Prepared Statement of........................................   565
    Blum, Lieutenant General H Steven, Chief, National Guard Bureau,
      National Guard, Department of Defense........................243, 479
        Opening Statement of.........................................   247
        Prepared Statement of........................................   250
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   297
    Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri:
        Prepared Statements of.....................................109, 246
        Statements of..............................................109, 246
    Bradley, Lieutenant General John A., Chief, Air Force Reserve,
      Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.............   334
        Prepared Statement of........................................   334
        Question Submitted to........................................   350
    Bruzek-Kohler, Rear Admiral Christine M., Director, Navy Nurse
      Corps, Department of the Navy, Medical Health Programs,
      Department of Defense..........................................   397
        Prepared Statement of........................................   399
        Questions submitted to.......................................   433
    Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator From Montana:
        Prepared Statements of.................................21, 439, 481
        Questions Submitted by................................175, 234, 237
        Statements of..............................................180, 244

    Chanik, Vice Admiral Marty, Director of Force Structure,
      Assessments and Resources, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of
      Defense........................................................     1
    Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States, Prepared Statement of the.......   672
    Coane, Rear Admiral Casey, United States Navy (Retired),
      Executive Director, Naval Reserve Association..................   634
        Prepared Statement of........................................   635
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
        Prepared Statements of.....................................438, 480
        Questions Submitted by....18, 20, 161, 171, 232, 236, 298, 349, 350
    Cotton, Vice Admiral John G., Chief, Naval Reserve, Department of
      the Navy, Department of Defense................................   317
        Prepared Statement of........................................   317

    Dodgen, Lieutenant General Larry J., Commanding General, U.S.
      Army Space and Missile Defense Command/U.S. Army Forces
      Strategic Command, United States Army, Missile Defense Agency,
      Department of Defense..........................................   450
        Prepared Statement of........................................   451
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   477
    Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico,
      Questions Submitted by.........................95, 173, 299, 476, 532
    Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota,
      Statements of................................................111, 281
    Duggan, Dennis, Deputy Director, American Legion.................   646
        Prepared Statement of........................................   647

    Feigel, Gene E., Ph.D., President, American Society of Mechanical
      Engineers (ASME)...............................................   588
        Prepared Statement of........................................   590
    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
      Questions Submitted by.............................163, 176, 235, 238
    Florida State University, Prepared Statement of..................   674

    Hagee, General Michael W., Commandant, Marine Corps, Department
      of the Navy, Department of Defense.............................    19
        Prepared Statement of........................................    64
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   103
    Hahn, Chris, Executive Director, Mesothelioma Applied Research
      Foundation (MARF)..............................................   553
        Prepared Statement of........................................   554
    Hanson, Captain Marshall, United States Navy Reserve (Retired),
      Co-Director, National Military Veterans Alliance...............   568
        Prepared Statement of........................................   569
    Harvey, Hon. Francis J., Secretary of the Army, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Army, Department of Defense.......   107
        Prepared Statement of........................................   114
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   166
    Helmly, Lieutenant General James R., Chief, Army Reserve,
      Department of the Army, Department of Defense..................   303
        Prepared Statement of........................................   304
        Question Submitted to........................................   350
    Hurd, Captain Robert C., U.S. Navy (Retired).....................   556
        Prepared Statement of........................................   558

    Ickes, Major General Charles, II, Acting Director, Air National
      Guard, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense......   279
        Question Submitted to........................................   302
    Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii:
        Opening Statement of.........................................   535
        Prepared Statements of.............................2, 180, 438, 480
        Questions Submitted by.................................97, 101, 105
        Statement of......................................20, 108, 244, 354

    James, Lieutenant General Daniel, III, Vice Chief, National Guard
      Bureau and Director, Air National Guard, Department of Defense,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................   263
    Jonas, Hon. Tina, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
      Department of Defense..........................................1, 479
        Prepared Statement of........................................     5

    Kiley, Lieutenant General Kevin C., M.D., Surgeon General,
      Department of the Army, Medical Health Programs, Department of
      Defense........................................................   353
        Prepared Statement of........................................   357
        Questions submitted to.......................................   423
    Koper, Brigadier General Stephen, United States National Guard
      (Retired), President, National Guard Association of the United
      States.........................................................   661
        Prepared Statement of........................................   663

    Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   533

    Mathewson, John, Executive Vice President, The HSC Foundation....   618
    Mathewson, Lesli Foster, Weekend Anchor, Channel 9 News,
      Washington, DC.................................................   618
    Matz, Major General William M., Jr., United States Army
      (Retired), President, National Association for Uniformed
      Services (NAUS)................................................   535
        Prepared Statement of........................................   537
    McCarthy, Lieutenant General Dennis M., United States Marine
      Corps (Retired), Executive Director, Reserve Officers
      Association of the United States...............................   581
        Prepared Statement of........................................   582
    Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland,
      Statement of...................................................   245
    Moakler, Kathleen B., Deputy Director, Government Relations,
      National Military Family Association...........................   653
        Prepared Statement of........................................   654
    Morris, Robert V., President, Morris Heritage Foundation, Inc....   638
    Moseley, General T. Michael, Chief of Staff, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense..   179
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   236
    Mullen, Admiral Michael G., Chief of Naval Operations, Department
      of the Navy, Department of Defense.............................    19
        Biographical Sketch of.......................................    62
        Prepared Statement of........................................    39
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    99

    National Brain Injury Research, Treatment, & Training Foundation,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   665

    Obering, Lieutenant General Henry A. ``Trey'', III, United States
      Air Force, Director, Missile Defense Agency, Department of
      Defense........................................................   437
        Prepared Statement of........................................   442
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   473
    Olanoff, Command Chief Master Sergeant Mark H., United States Air
      Force (Retired), on Behalf of the Armed Forces Top Enlisted
      Association....................................................   593
        Prepared Statement of........................................   594

    Pace, General Peter, United States Marine Corps, Chairman of the
      Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense...................   494
        Prepared Statement of........................................   496
    Pollock, Major General Gale, Chief, Army Nurse Corps, Department
      of the Army, Medical Health Programs, Department of Defense....   387
        Biographical Sketch of.......................................   396
        Prepared Statement of........................................   389
        Questions submitted to.......................................   432
    Polly, Dr. David W., Jr., M.D., on Behalf of the American Academy
      of Orthopaedic Surgeons........................................   620
        Prepared Statement of........................................   621

    Rank, Major General Melissa A., Assistant Surgeon General for
      Nursing Services, Department of the Air Force, Medical Health
      Programs, Department of Defense................................   404
        Prepared Statement of........................................   406
        Questions submitted to.......................................   430
    Recker, Dr. Robert, M.D., Director, Osteoporosis Research Center,
      Creighton University, on Behalf of the National Coalition for
      Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases.........................   626
        Prepared Statement of........................................   628
    Rumsfeld, Hon. Donald H., Secretary of Defense, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of Defense...............................   479
        Prepared Statement of........................................   487

    Scherling, Major General Terry L., Director of the Joint Staff,
      National Guard Bureau, Department of Defense, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   270
    Schoomaker, General Peter J., Chief of Staff, United States Army,
      Office of the Secretary, Department of the Army, Department of
      Defense........................................................   107
        Prepared Statement of........................................   114
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   161
        Statement of.................................................   150
    Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama, Questions
      Submitted by.................................................301, 350
    Specter, Senator Arlen, U.S. Senator From Pennsylvania, Questions
      Submitted by.................................................172, 299
    Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
        Opening Statements of...........1, 19, 107, 179, 243, 353, 437, 479
        Prepared Statement of........................................   437
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   16,
       93, 99, 103, 166, 232, 297, 301, 302, 423, 425, 427, 430, 432, 433,
                                                                   473, 477
    Strickland, Dr. William J., Ph.D., Vice President, Human
      Resources Research Organization, on Behalf of the American
      Psychological Association......................................   543
        Prepared Statement of........................................   545
    Strobridge, Colonel Steven P., United States Air Force (Retired),
      Director, Government Relations, The Military Coalition.........   597
        Prepared Statement of........................................   599

    Taylor, Lieutenant General George Peach, Jr., M.D., Surgeon
      General, Department of the Air Force, Medical Health Programs,
      Department of Defense..........................................   367
        Prepared Statement of........................................   369
        Questions submitted to.......................................   427
    Thomas, Dr. Edwin Professor, Founding Director, Institute for
      Soldier Nanotechnologies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
      (MIT)..........................................................   604
        Prepared Statement of........................................   606

    Vance, Petty Officer First Class Jessica A., 2006 Naval Sea Cadet
      of the Year, U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps........................   556
    Vaughn, Lieutenant General Clyde A., Vice Chief, National Guard
      Bureau and Director, Army National Guard, Department of Defense   278
        Prepared Statement of........................................   257
        Question Submitted to........................................   301
    Vietnam Veterans of America, Prepared Statement of...............   667
    Visco, Fran, J.D., President, National Breast Cancer Coalition...   629
        Prepared Statement of........................................   630

    Winter, The Honorable David C., Secretary of the Navy, Department
      of the Navy, Department of Defense.............................    19
        Biographical Sketch of.......................................    37
        Prepared Statement of........................................    22
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    93
    Wynne, Hon. Michael W., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.............   179
        Prepared Statement of........................................   183
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   232

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                                                                       Page

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    16
    Basic Allowance for Housing......................................    16
    Budget...........................................................     7
    Contracting......................................................    11
    Corrosion Costs..................................................    18
    Costs............................................................    14
        Of the War...................................................     9
    Defend the Homeland..............................................     6
    Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2007 Budget....................     7
    End Strength of Army Guard.......................................     8
    Funding:
        Flexibility..................................................    13
        For Veterans.................................................    12
    Maintain U.S. Military Superiority...............................     6
    Military:
        Health Care..................................................     7
        Pay..........................................................     6
    Oversight........................................................    15
    Prevail in Irregular Warfare Operations..........................     5
    Special Forces...................................................     9
    Strategic Priorities.............................................     5
    Summary Statement................................................     2
    Supplemental.....................................................     7
    Supporting Service Members and Their Families....................     6

                          Department of the Air Force

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   232
    Aging Aircraft...................................................   237
    Air Force Personnel Cuts.........................................   237
    Air and Space Power:
        Today--Building on Our Heritage..............................   186
        For Tomorrow--Aiming for the Unlimited Horizon...............   195
    Alternate Engine Program.........................................   232
    Bomber Modernization.............................................   215
    B-52 cuts........................................................   234
    Competitor States................................................   237
    C-17 Transport:
        And Army Mobility............................................   241
        And Strategic Airlift Requirements...........................   239
        General Issues...............................................   238
    500 Missiles.....................................................   234
    ICBM Force Reduction.............................................   234
    Introduction--Heritage to Horizon................................   184
    Joint Cargo Aircraft:
        Program Allied Participation.................................   236
        And Multinational Operations.................................   236
    Joint Strike Fighter.............................................   232
        Competitive Procurement......................................   233
    Keesler Training Pipeline........................................   233
    Personnel End Strength Reductions................................   236
    Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator..................................   235
    Sled Test:
        Assistance From Sandia.......................................   235
        Status.......................................................   235
    Spaced-based Infrared Systems High Program.......................   233
    Summary--Heritage to Horizon.....................................   208
    Supplemental Funding.............................................   232

                             Department of the Army

                            Office of the Secretary

    Acronyms.........................................................   147
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   161
    All Volunteer Force..............................................   113
    Army:
        Force Generation Model (ARFORGEN)............................   153
        Heritage and Education Center................................   172
        Modular Force..............................................112, 163
        Transformation and the C-17 Aircraft Program...............164, 170
    Army National Guard:
        End Strength.................................................   171
        Force Structure..............................................   152
    Balancing Risk: The Tension Between Current and Future Demands...   144
    Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)............................169, 172
    Business Transformation..........................................   167
    Civil War in Iraq................................................   165
    Depot Funding....................................................   157
    Equipment:
        Modernization................................................   155
        Readiness....................................................   171
    Future Combat Systems (FCS)...............................113, 166, 174
    Hyperbaric Treatment.............................................   161
    Improvised Explosive Devices.....................................   173
    Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS)...........   169
    Intra-theater Airlift............................................   162
    Iraq's Influence in Iraq.........................................   166
    Joint:
        Cargo Aircraft (JCA).........................................   159
        Common Missile (JCM).........................................   159
        Tactical Radio System (JTRS).................................   170
    Light Utility Helicopter (LUH)...................................   172
    Mission: Providing Forces and Capabilities.......................   126
    Modularity.......................................................   166
    National Guard...................................................   175
    National Museum of the United States Army/Army Heritage and
      Education Center--Complementary Projects.......................   173
    Preserving Peace and Freedom for the Nation......................   146
    Provide Infrastructure and Support to Enable the Force to Fulfill
      Its Strategic Roles and Missions...............................   142
    Provide Relevant and Ready Landpower for the 21st Century
      Security Environment...........................................   130
    Purpose and Organization of the 2006 Army Posture Statement......   114
    Quadrennial Defense Review.......................................   153
    Receipt of Supplemental Funds....................................   171
    Recruiting and Retention:
        Budget for Fiscal Year 2007..................................   157
        Incentives...................................................   156
    Resetting the Force..............................................   167
    Restructuring the Force--AC/RC Rebalance.........................   169
    Retention........................................................   150
    Science and Technology (S&T) Investments.........................   174
    Soldiers.........................................................   175
    Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.....................................   156
    Sustain an All-Volunteer Force Composed of Highly Competent
      Soldiers That Are Provided an Equally High Quality of Life.....   139
    TRICARE..........................................................   154
    The Army Plan to Enable Mission Accomplishment...................   128
    The Army Vision: Relevant and Ready Landpower in Service to the
      Nation.........................................................   125
    Train and Equip Soldiers to Serve as Warriors and Grow Adaptive
      Leaders........................................................   135
    Training of Iraqi Security Forces..............................163, 177
    Troop Reductions...............................................165, 166
        Training of Iraqi Security Forces............................   166
    2006 Army Posture Statement Executive Summary....................   115
    21st Century Security Environment: An Era of Uncertainty and
      Unpredictability...............................................   119
    Unfunded Requirements............................................   160
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)..................................   158
    War Costs........................................................   176
    Warfighter Information Network--Tactical (WIN-T).................   169

                             Department of the Navy

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    93
    Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) Budget Shortfall...............    99
    Building the Future Force........................................    47
    Capabilities Development.........................................    74
    Changing the Way We Fight........................................    30
    Cost Estimate to Reset the Force.................................   103
    C-130 Cancellation...............................................    97
    Declining Budget and the 313 Ship Navy...........................    99
    Developing 21st Century Leaders..................................    54
    Equipment........................................................    28
    Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Priorities...............................    23
    Funding for Recruiting and Retention Incentives, Bonuses and
      Advertising....................................................    99
    Health Benefit:
        Cost--Affect on Recruiting/Retention.........................   103
        Costs........................................................   102
    Improving Business Practices.....................................    35
    KC-130 Inventory Objective.......................................   105
    LPD-17 Amphibious Ship...........................................    87
    Long Wavelength Array............................................    97
    MV-22............................................................    83
        Osprey.......................................................   104
    Magdalena Ridge Observatory......................................    97
    Marine Corps:
        End Strength.................................................    84
        Equipment Replacement........................................    88
        Recruitment..................................................    89
        Reserve......................................................    88
        Special Operations Command...................................   105
        Training.....................................................    89
    Mental Health Care...............................................    82
    Naval Workforce..................................................    25
    Navy Expeditionary Combat Command................................    80
        Equipping Strategy...........................................    94
        Global War on Terror.........................................    93
    Navy High Energy Laser Testing...................................    96
    Operations.......................................................    26
    Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) Performance................   102
    Preparing for the Future: The Last Year..........................    67
    Recruiting and Retention.........................................    85
    Reserve Health Benefits..........................................   105
    Resetting the Force and Preparing for the Next Contingency.......    65
    Restore Private Shipyards........................................   102
    SEAL Recruiting..................................................   101
    SEALs Effect on End Strength.....................................    94
    Sea-based Missile Defense........................................   101
    Selective Reenlistment Bonuses...................................   105
    Service Members' Absentee Votes..................................    90
    Shape Our 21st Century Workforce.................................    29
    Shipbuilding:
        And Operations Costs.........................................    97
        Plan.........................................................    87
    Special Operations Forces........................................    81
    Steaming Days....................................................    83
    Supplemental:
        Funding:
            And USMC Equipment Reset.................................   104
            For V-22.................................................   104
        Request......................................................    86
    Sustaining Readiness.............................................    42
    313 Ship Plan....................................................   100
    Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAV).............................90, 100
    War Definition...................................................    92
    Water Purification Program.......................................    95

                            Medical Health Programs

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   423
    Addressing Billet Shortfalls and Meeting Mission.................   433
    Aeromedical Evacuation...........................................   371
    Base Realignment and Closure.....................................   368
    Changes in Navy Medicine.........................................   364
    Clinical Successes...............................................   409
    Combat Casualty Care.............................................   363
    Deployment Health................................................   372
    Deployments......................................................   371
        And Quality of Care..........................................   364
    EMEDS............................................................   370
    Education Programs and Policies..................................   402
    Emerging Missions................................................   365
    Expeditionary Nursing............................................   407
    Force Health Protection..........................................   362
    Global War on Terrorism..........................................   370
    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita......................................   408
    Installations as our Flagships...................................   358
    Medical Recruiting.............................................365, 427
        Goals........................................................   433
    Mental Health....................................................   364
    Mid-level Leadership/Senior Leadership Development...............   403
    Our Way Ahead....................................................   412
    Partnership With the Department of Veterans Affairs..............   363
    People...........................................................   374
    Post Traumatic Stress:
        Disorder...................................................428, 430
        Return to Duty...............................................   434
    Readiness and Clinical Proficiency...............................   399
    Recapitalization.................................................   374
    Recruiting:
        And Retention....................................357, 410, 429, 430
        Goals........................................................   428
    Requirements and Force Shaping...................................   401
    Research.........................................................   411
        And Development..............................................   359
    Skill Sustainment................................................   410
    Sustain the Benefit..............................................   359
    Sustaining the Benefit/Health Care Costs.........................   366
    TRICARE..........................................................   375
    Technological Edge...............................................   373

                             Missile Defense Agency

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   473
    Air and Missile Defense:
        Battalions...................................................   454
        An Overview of the Fiscal Year 2007 Army Budget Submission...   453
    Air, Space, and Missile Defense Command and Control..............   456
    Airborne Laser...................................................   459
    Arrow Program....................................................   466
    Ballistic Missile Defense System.................................   477
    Building Confidence Through Spiral Testing.......................   444
    Command and Control..............................................   468
    Completing the:
        Fielding of Block 2004.......................................   443
        Next Increment--Block 2006...................................   446
    Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM)........................   457
    Countermeasures..................................................   461
    Cruise Missile Defense...........................................   455
    Directed Energy Initiatives......................................   457
    Evolving Security Environment....................................   442
    Expendable Launch Vehicle Program................................   470
    Ground-based:
        Midcourse Defense Quality Control............................   462
        Missile Defense..............................................   474
    Integrated AMD System of Systems.................................   453
    International Participation......................................   448
    Kinetic Energy Interceptor Program.............................460, 463
    Layered Defense..................................................   465
    Missile Defense..................................................   467
        Approach--Layered Defense....................................   442
        Flight Testing...............................................   458
    Moving Toward the Future--Block 2008 and Beyond..................   447
    Multiple Kill Vehicle Funding....................................   464
    Operational Readiness............................................   458
    Sea Based X-Band.................................................   471
    Terminal:
        High-Altitude Area Defense Program...........................   460
        Phase Ballistic Missile Defenses.............................   454
    USSTRATCOM JFCC-IMD..............................................   452
    Value of Test Ranges to Missile Defense Agency (MDA)...........475, 476
    X-Band Radar Security............................................   471

                                 National Guard

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   297
    Air National Guard F-15 Modernization............................   285
    America's 21st Century Minutemen--Always Ready, Always There!....   250
    Emergency:
        Power Sources for the National Guard.........................   300
        Preparedness for Natural Disasters...........................   286
    Equipment:
        Funding......................................................   283
        Readiness....................................................   284
        Wear and Depletion...........................................   294
    Hollaran Air Force Base: F-22 Construction.......................   289
    Joint Staff Overview.............................................   270
    Kirtland National Guard's Role With F-16 Squadrons...............   299
    Length of Deployment.............................................   293
    Mission Readiness................................................   295
    National Guard:
        And Playas...................................................   300
        And Reserves Operation Tempo.................................   281
        And the Army's Air Defense Artillery.........................   300
        End Strength and Force Structure.............................   282
        Role in the Quadrennial Defense Review.......................   285
        Seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff..........................289, 294
    National Guard's Role in Border Security.........................   300
    Retention in the Army National Guard.............................   288
    Role of the National Guard.......................................   296
    State Adjutants General..........................................   277
    Total Force Integration and North Dakota.........................   292

                            Office of the Secretary

    Accelerate Transformation........................................   498
    Acquisition Process..............................................   504
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   532
    Ballistic Missile Defense........................................   489
    Base Realignment and Closure Commission..........................   526
    Border Security................................................506, 510
    Defense Health Program...........................................   505
    Democracy in Iraq................................................   519
    Domestic Surveillance............................................   504
    Earmarks.........................................................   523
    Federal Aviation Administration Coordination on Unmanned Aerial
      Ve-
      hicles.........................................................   527
    Global Posture...................................................   487
    Improve the Quality of Life of our Service Members and our
      Families.......................................................   501
    Intelligence Management..........................................   524
    Iraq.............................................................   491
    Iraqi Government Formation.......................................   511
    Leadership Approaches............................................   489
    Managing the Force...............................................   488
    Meeting New Challenges...........................................   484
    Mental Health....................................................   493
    Military Draft...................................................   530
    National Guard.................................................483, 517
        On the Border................................................   488
    Navy...........................................................484, 489
    New Organizations................................................   489
    Operations and Maintenance.......................................   484
    Progress in Iraq...............................................486, 503
    Resistance to Change.............................................   490
    Retired Generals' Criticism......................................   529
    Satellite Programs...............................................   502
    Secretary's Opening Statement....................................   482
    Shifting our Emphasis............................................   491
    Special Operations...............................................   489
    Strengthen Joint Warfighting.....................................   499
    Supplemental:
        Funding......................................................   494
        Request......................................................   492
    Tanker Recapitalization..........................................   513
    The Long War.....................................................   490
    Transformation...................................................   482
    Treatment of Detainees...........................................   522
    Troop Withdrawal...............................................516, 521
    U.S. Army........................................................   487
    War Planning.....................................................   489
    Weapons Systems..................................................   488
    Win the War on Terrorism.........................................   497

                                    Reserves

    Activation:
        Impact.......................................................   326
        Philosophy...................................................   326
        Time Limits..................................................   349
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   349
    Army Reserve History.............................................   305
    Base Realignment and Closure.....................................   337
    Changing Demand Signals--New and Non-Traditional Missions........   319
    Closing..........................................................   340
    Equipment......................................................327, 343
        Shortfalls...................................................   347
    Equipping the Force..............................................   312
    Family Support...................................................   337
    Fiscal Year:
        2006 NGREA...................................................   339
        2007 Funding.................................................   340
    Historical Background and Today..................................   305
    Homeland Contingency Support.....................................   335
    Managing Change..................................................   306
    Manning the Force................................................   313
    Marine Corps Reserve Capabilities................................   327
    Mission Contributions 2005.......................................   335
    Modular Support Brigades.........................................   350
    One Tier of Readiness............................................   338
    Our People: Mobilization vs. Volunteerism........................   336
    Personnel Reductions.............................................   350
    Providing Trained and Ready Units................................   308
    Purpose and Organization of the Posture Statement................   304
    Quality of Life..................................................   330
    Readiness........................................................   321
    Reconstitution...................................................   340
    Recruiting.....................................................320, 344
        And Retention....................................329, 336, 343, 345
    Return on Investment.............................................   324
    Shaping the Reserve Force........................................   336
    Size and Shape of the Force......................................   320
    Strategic Overview...............................................   306
    The Way Ahead....................................................   317
    Today's Army Reserve.............................................   304
    Transformation...................................................   322
    Your Marine Corps Reserve Today..................................   323

                                       -